Re: The yogurt, redacted.
Sample ruling by Corporate Compliance Officer · BantamCourt Bench
- Complaint
- A coworker removed my clearly labeled yogurt — labeled, in red Sharpie, "DOE — DO NOT EAT" — from the office fridge, on a day they were "on a low-carb thing," and replaced it with a yogurt of the same brand, in a "spirit of restitution." The restitution is unpersuasive. The label was clear.
- Defense
- The respondent argues the yogurts were "visually similar" and that they "thought they were buying the same one." They further note the petitioner has, in the past, mistakenly taken the respondent's oat milk, and that the two events "even out under the OE-EE policy."
- Findings
- There was a yogurt. There was a label, in red Sharpie, with the petitioner's name. The respondent either did not read or did not respect the label. The "visually similar" defense is, in this Court's audit, specious — the yogurts were different flavors, and the label was, again, in red Sharpie. The OE-EE policy is not a policy in this office.
- Verdict
- Form 27-B filed. Restitution is accepted, plus a written note of apology by Wednesday.
- Reasoning
- A shared fridge is a small compliance environment. Labels are the audit trail. When the audit trail is ignored, the office incurs a small but measurable moral cost. The respondent will replace the yogurt (visually distinct, this time) and sign a one-sentence note of apology, to be posted on the fridge door for one week. The form is now closed.
- Harmless sentence
- Replace the yogurt. Sign the note. Move on.
