Morrisons: The risks of being a Super-market Super-hero

April 29, 2026

In another case similar to the recently reported Waitrose incident, Morrisons have also been judged in the court of public opinion before even setting foot in a tribunal. Morrisons are facing scrutiny for dismissing an employee of 29 years, after the employee physically intervened with a shoplifter.

The Incident

It is reported that a Morrisons worker, Mr Egan, who had worked in the Aldridge store, near Walsall, for 29 years had intervened in a shoplifting attempt. Mr Egan tried to remove the shoplifter from the store, the shoplifter had allegedly become abusive and spat on Mr Egan twice, Mr Egan then used physical measures to stop the shoplifter. Following the incident Mr Egan was dismissed.

Political & Public Reaction

The incident prompted widespread public debate, Mr Egan was the subject of social media discussions and appeared on national talk shows. Public sympathy towards Mr Egan was substantial, resulting in a GoFundMe page raising over £12,000 for Mr Egan. Further, his local MP, Wendy Morton, commended his actions. Wendy Morton wrote to the Chief Executive of Morrisons saying her constituents consider the 46-year-old a “hero”.

Legal Perspective

From an employment standpoint, the key question is whether Morrisons acted reasonably and whether dismissal was within the “band of reasonable responses”. Morrisons’ non‑intervention policy, adopted to reduce the risk of serious injury for both employee and shoplifter may be viewed by a Tribunal as legitimate, particularly given previous incidents in which individuals have been hospitalised when attempting to challenge shoplifters and vice versa. This combined with being vicariously liable for their employees means Morrisons could be responsible for injuries caused to, or by, a shoplifter.

Based on the breach of policy and the incident, Mr Egan’s actions could be viewed as misconduct or even gross misconduct, potentially justifying dismissal. However, any assessment of fairness would also take account his 29 years of service.

The key questions would be:

Did Mr Egan know the policy?
Was there regular training?
Are there any other mitigating factors?

Although we do not know the full facts of the disciplinary process other than what has been reported, it seems possible that Morrisons could justify the dismissal as a proportionate response, but, they may have underestimated the PR risk.

Public Relations Perspective

The Morrisons incident highlights how quickly an employment issue can escalate into a public and media driven controversy. What might otherwise have remained an internal matter became the subject of widespread social media criticism and national coverage.

The scale and speed of the public response underlines the need to recognise that sensitive workplace decisions, particularly involving high profile businesses may trigger immediate and intense public scrutiny.

Lessons for Employers

1. Clear and accessible policies

This case highlights the importance of ensuring that safety‑related policies are communicated clearly and consistently. Where confrontation is prohibited, those affected need to understand why the rule exists, how it operates, and what alternative steps should be considered.

2. Thorough examination of context

Long service, a reputable staff member, and circumstances surrounding an incident should all be weighed carefully before determining serious outcomes. Other measures, such as warnings, retraining, or temporary adjustments, may at times be more appropriate than ending a long‑standing position.

3. Finding the balance

Where businesses need to maintain rigid policies for health and safety or other reasons, those policies should be consistently upheld. Maintaining a clear and stable brand identity has commercial value, a consideration that tribunals recognise and may factor into their assessment of the wider commercial context. However, employers must also be alive to the potential public relations fallout, as the consistent application of policy does not necessarily protect against adverse public or media reaction.

How We Can Help

For further information, or to discuss ways to find the balance, please contact us to speak to a member of our Employment Team.

Darren Smith

Partner, Employment

<script>
document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded', function () {
  const deptEl = document.getElementById('acf-author-department');
  const department = deptEl?.dataset?.department;

  if (typeof gtag === 'function' && department) {
    gtag('set', { author_department: department });
  }
});


  window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
  const dept = document.getElementById("author-department")?.textContent?.trim();
  if (dept) {
    window.dataLayer.push({
      event: "authorDataReady",
      author_department: dept
    });
  }

</script>

View profile Contact Us

Theo Olanrewaju

View profile Contact Us

This reflects the law and market position at the date of publication and is written as a general guide. It does not contain definitive legal advice, which should be sought in relation to a specific matter.