b. Yes. In my opinion, Saks’ zero-tolerance policy for employee theft was reasonable and effective way for internal control. Even though the case presented only one instance when Fierro was caught stealing, the fact that he was caught already tends to lead someone/management or gives the management a notion to believe that he had probably stole before or will probably do it in the future.
The zero-tolerance policy might seem harsh, however it has its advantages that are hard to calculate. The policy might have resulted to the termination of a top performing employee but it sent a message to the rest of the employees exactly how serious the company is concerning employee theft.
Forging signature and theft are both criminal offenses. Hence, even if the loss that Saks has suffered was relatively trivial/small ($9.85), Fierro should receive appropriate sanctions for his actions for he clearly violated some provisions of the company’s employee handbook.
Such policy is also a way to maintain strict code of conduct among Saks’ employees and promote a sound control environment that advocates an honest culture of integrity and ethical values.
The policy may not be cost-effective in the short-run since sales may decrease due to Fierro’s termination, as he was a top performing salesman. However, in the long-run, the policy can prevent future losses from employee theft. The long-run savings can outweigh the short-term losses.

In my opinion, the store’s zero-tolerance policy for theft was unreasonable. An employee which may otherwise have been an excellent worker may have had a momentary lapse such as was the case of Fierro. The store’s zero-tolerance policy has thus removed a top employee for what was a trivial amount of $9.85, which may not even be considered as theft, as the employee discounts were permitted in other areas of the store. I believe that a minimum