updates: Diet Coke as a religious accommodation, coworker loves shoplifting, and more

by Alison Green on December 2, 2024

It’s “where are you now?” month at Ask a Manager, and all December I’m running updates from people who had their letters here answered in the past. Here are four updates from past letter-writers.

There will be more posts than usual this week, so keep checking back throughout the day.

1. An industry colleague is lying to me about a dispute we had years ago

Oh boy do I have an update. Buckle up!

I took your advice and filed the interaction as “intel about Elsa.” The coffee got cancelled because her kids were sick, we never rescheduled it, and I never heard anything more about the case study. While I dreamed of doing a “mic drop” moment, I decided to be the bigger person here.

And then … my organization got restructured, and while my job is safe, I have been seconded to a different organization in the same industry. It’s a great development opportunity and I’m mostly enjoying it. Except…

For the last few months, I have been working with Elsa on a joint application for federal funding for the program I work for. The whole way through, she and Sven were very clear that they wanted to partner with us. I would have preferred we didn’t, given Elsa and Sven’s past behavior, but it was already in train when I arrived so it was a case of sucking it up.

The day after the deadline for funding applications closed, I got an email from the funder asking for clarification about the two applications. At which point, my brain exploded.

Sven and Elsa have put in a separate funding application for the same project. They took the information we shared in good faith, undercut the partnership, and made it sound like the partnership was submitted under duress, when we have emails and texts to the contrary.

My CEO saw red and contacted their board, who had no idea that Sven had put the application in. In fact, they’d just congratulated Sven on his efforts to collaborate with us! When cornered, Sven apparently said he was “covering his bases, and it’s not personal.”

So now the future of our funding (and my job) is in jeopardy, I spend half my day screenshotting emails and writing file notes for every interaction with Sven and Elsa, and I’ve come to the conclusion that they missed their callings as Shakespearian-level actors. It’s a crazy world…

2. Coworker says she loves shoplifting

Our young shoplifting friend has been a source of chaos and positive change, so I thought I would send a tiny update.

The self-described shoplifter, “Alice,” was seen rummaging through Security Guy’s drawers looking for his keys to a locked cabinet. He got mad at her (even vented about getting her fired, but considering that neither of us has that power, I think he was just blowing off steam) and I gather he was pretty harsh.

At our next all-staff, Alice began crying as she described how upset she was about being chastised for this faux pas. The locked cabinet contains items like beanies, metallic blankets, and water bottles for use in one-on-one conversations with our most vulnerable patrons, and she was trying to help someone in a way that was 100% in line with her job. Security Guy gruffly offered to unlock the cabinet in the morning and relock it when he leaves so that those items are freely available to the front desk staff during the day. (Even though the cabinet is in a locked staff area, stuff gets stolen overnight.)

So not a huge update but I thought people might enjoy that her anarchic energy does some good in the workplace! There was a very informative discussion in the comments about shoplifting. Apparently, for a lot of people it’s a pretty normal part of growing up and young adulthood that those of us who didn’t/don’t participate just have no idea about.

Separately, I listened to a podcast episode about the book Who Moved My Cheese? and realized that lingering trauma from a very mean boss that I had when I was fresh out of college is probably part of why I am so solicitous about the young people in my workplace, but that’s neither here nor there.

3. I got chastised for intervening with a friend’s hiring efforts (#2 at the link)

You were right on the money. I apologized to Ben the next week (it was the earliest we had a chance to talk privately) and his response was more or less to forget about it — he accepted my apology and said quote “that’s last week’s problem.” It hasn’t come up again since.

It turns out that the reason they were being canny about hiring was because they already had someone in the pipeline — a returning employee who has since started and is fantastic. She is doing a great job and I can see why they would worry about anything that jeopardized her ability to join us. I think my biggest mistake was not trusting Ben, et al, to make a good call here.

There don’t seem to have been any long-term ramifications. We are expanding my part of the organization and I have been tapped as the subject-area lead (think most senior non-management person) on a new team we are now forming. The role is not a promotion in itself, but it’s high-importance/high-visibility and opens up a clear avenue for promotion in the next year or two that I didn’t have before. Abe (my manager) and I did a sort of mini-performance review in preparation for my transition to that and absolutely nothing about this issue was mentioned; I am still considered a top performer. (It still could come up in my “real” yearly review, I guess, but I don’t know that I expect it to at this point.)

I want to thank you and the commenters for the advice and discussion. It was fascinating to see such divided opinions — some people were like “why is this a problem at all?” and some people were like “this was even worse than you thought and a borderline fireable offense.” As best I can tell, it boils down to organizational culture, and I was over the line for my particular org.

4. Employee is demanding Diet Coke as a religious accommodation

My friend and I read through your answer together, which was helpful for us to get a conversation started about what to do, and then talked through a few possible scenarios. We are both managers and I had never encountered a situation like this before so it was very interesting to discuss how to ensure that someone’s religious accommodation is met and that they feel included in an event, while also aligning with the mission of the organization.

My friend ended up telling Jane that Diet Coke would not be served at the event, and that that was non-negotiable, and then asked her if she would like to be involved in picking the mocktail options. As I understand it, she did push back a bit, but eventually decided that she wanted to help pick non-alcoholic drinks to ensure there would be something she liked. Ultimately this seemed to go over well, and the fundraiser was successful.

You may also like:
{ 166 comments }

{ 166 comments… read them below }

  1. bruh*

    Alice sounds difficult but sincere, which is a mixture I find frustrating! It’s easier when difficult people are also jagoffs.

    1. LookAtMeI'mTheManagerNow*

      Part of sincerity is understanding how your actions will be perceived by others and how that affects your goals. Alice is thinking “My intentions are good, so I’m not doing anything wrong”, but rifling through the security guard’s desk is an obviously inappropriate thing to do.

        1. December Already*

          +1

          Your reputation matters….unfortunately I don’t think Alice will realize this and will think the security guard was overreacting.

        2. fhqwhgads*

          Yeah, like, people believe what you said about enjoying stealing and then you’re offended when they assume you’re rifling for someone else’s keys in order to steal?
          I also feel a little confused about the update. I don’t really see how her chaotic energy was harnessed for good? I feel like I’m missing something.

          1. Myrin*

            Yeah, I was confused by OP’s framing here because I honestly don’t really see the connection – I happen to find people like Alice incredibly annoying and am separately, as someone who worked in a store for several years, really put off by shoplifters, but if I were in a situation like in the letter, I probably would’ve gone in search for the keys, too. That doesn’t mean I have “anarchic energy” or say anything about my attitude towards stealing.

      2. Carly*

        But if he’s keeping the only keys to needed supplies for the public, and she couldn’t find him…

        1. LookAtMeI'mTheManagerNow*

          Then you bring up the situation with him to his face, and if that doesn’t work, to the boss. This isn’t King’s Quest.

        2. Resident Catholicville, U.S.A.*

          Yeah, we don’t know the entire situation- it sounds like he wasn’t at the desk, so she couldn’t ask for the keys and needed to get into the cabinet right then to help a patron. From what it sounds like, the OP thinks this is a positive change, so apparently there have been issues with people having access to the cabinet so having it unlocked and readily available is a bonus.

          I’m not advocating for coworkers rooting around in other peoples’ desks on a regular basis, but it’s my understanding that desks are part of a workplace and access to them is available to coworkers if something work related is needed. I don’t love the idea of my coworkers opening my drawers to find something, but if it’s work related and I’m not there to ask, I can’t fault them for it. My boss was out of the office last week and I got into her desk for work related material. I once had a coworker tell me she would raid other peoples’ desks for *snacks* and that I objected to, but if she had said she needed a pen or a file I had in my desk, I wouldn’t love her doing it, but it’d be understandable.

        3. Dust Bunny*

          We had an access-to-supplies issue for a little while at one of my jobs but we solved it by getting two other people keys and permission to access the cabinets. That was enough to cover it.

        4. commensally*

          Yeah, I work at a library, and while that wouldn’t be an everyday thing, if we had someone at the desk who was going out to sleep rough and needed a thermal blanket, we would do what we needed to find the keys rather than turn them out in the cold without the help we had to give!

          If it was a case of she could have run into the other room and asked for them, that’s different, but it sounds like he wasn’t accessible, and this had been a regular problem before. (This is why you shouldn’t discuss your love of theft at work – you might *have* to ruffle through somebody’s desk drawer at some point, and you don’t want any reason for them to suspect it was for anything but legit work reasons.)

          1. Jane*

            Yeah idk if it’s a nonprofit thing but I’ve always considered that others’ desks are fair game to go in for any sort of work-related reason

            1. Nonprofits*

              It’s not a “nonprofit” thing. I’ve only worked at nonprofits and don’t go through others’ desks. (And I’m a supervisor.) I even feel weird if I borrow a pen or post-it from off the top of someone’s desk.

            2. sparkle emoji*

              Not at a nonprofit, but I do work that involved paper files. In my office it’s fair game to grab a shared one off a desk if the person isn’t there to grab it.

            3. iglwif*

              When I worked in the office this was considered fine and normal for desk surfaces and unlocked drawers.

              Anything confidential was stored in a locked drawer, and if you were supposed to have access to it you knew where to find the key.

              So, like OP, I would have side-eyed Alice’s behaviour in the moment but ultimately determined that it signalled a need for a different access process!

  2. Juicebox Hero*

    The Holy Diet Coke has been taking up way too much of my brainpower since it was first published. I’m glad there was a drama-free resolution.

    1. What, why?*

      The Diet Coke issue just makes me wish the Fug Girls had an advice column. This question is right up their alley and the answer would probably be from the spirit of Karl Lagerfeld.

    2. Rafiology*

      Diet Cola, blessed art thou,
      Holiest amongst carbonated beverages,
      We thank you for the bounty you are about to give,
      As we belch you out with fondest reverence

  3. Momma Bear*

    Yikes LW1. We’re going to need an update to that update. I hope you can figure it out and keep your job. That was really underhanded of them!

    1. Antilles*

      I hope #1’s company is getting the legal department involved. I can’t speak for OP’s field, but in my field, there would either be some kind of Teaming Agreement involved and/or client submittal guidelines which would prohibit this and send Sven and Elsa up a creek.

      1. Grant anon*

        Yeah, similar rules for joint applications, though I seem to be in a slightly different sector than you.

        OP, I’m so sorry you were depending on that funding and that these two stellar human beings doubled down on their deceitful and reality-bending behaviour. I truly hope that you can find a workable solution for you/your group and leave this mess behind in 2024!

      2. FrivYeti*

        Speaking as someone at a not-for-profit, the major problem here is that even if there are client submission guidelines to prohibit this, the fact that the partnership was undermined in this way is likely to sink the joint application regardless. From the funder’s perspective, they’ve just been handed proof positive that the partnership doesn’t work.

        In the long run, it probably won’t be a stain on LW1’s organization, because the problem didn’t originate from them, but it’s highly unlikely that the funder will offer to fund only their side of a joint proposal.

        1. Observer*

          From the funder’s perspective, they’ve just been handed proof positive that the partnership doesn’t work.

          Yes.

          Which is one of the reasons why it would make sense that Legal might get involved here.

        2. FricketyFrack*

          Might it depend on how the board of Sven/Elsa’s org handles it – if they fire those two and make it clear that the solo application can be scrapped because the submitters went rogue, could the joint application still be salvaged? I don’t know much about how non-profit funding works because, while I work in a government office that does some funding, my job only barely touches that side of things.

          Just seems like it would be a shame for everyone else at both orgs to suffer because two people are backstabbers.

          1. riverofmolecules*

            I think it’s the same problem. Often part of an application for funding is proving your organization(s) can do the work. Firing Sven and Elsa demonstrates the org’s commitment to the partnership, but it may also show the org lacks the capacity, even if it’s because they now have to replace two people and catch them up to speed.

            IME, government funding is more stringent than private foundation funding, so it’s unlikely the government officer can allow OP’s org a second bite at the apple at this point.

            It’s kinda ironic that Sven and Elsa wanted a fallback plan, basically in case OP’s org messes things up, but it’s that they messed things up and OP’s org is the one who needed a fall back plan.

          2. Sherm*

            If they are able to withdraw the rogue submission, they may indeed be able to salvage the original submission. They might not even have to get into the details of what happened.

            However, if the original submission has things that are no longer true in the wake of the mess (For instance, it says “Sven and Elsa are indispensable participants in this project” and Sven and Elsa no longer work there…) then that’s going to be a problem.

      3. Insert Clever Name Here*

        Also in a different industry, but I negotiate these types of agreements for federal funding requests and there is absolutely an “Exclusivity” clause that would cover this. Sven and Elsa are WILD.

        1. Observer*

          Sven and Elsa are WILD.

          Yes indeed. To the point that I would hope that this would be the final push to get them fired.

          But given the history, I doubt that that will happen.

      4. Le lemon lemon*

        WOAH to #1. To be undercut and know you’re dealing with slimy, unethical people.
        I had to re-read the whole story a few times, and I’d glossed over Sven being the CEO – WOAH. Super dodgy behaviour. May there be satisfying retribution for this, OP!

      5. H3llifIknow*

        Yeah it’s gobsmacking to me that with the types of teaming they’re doing, there’s not MOU, MOA, NDA, non-compete, whatever in place that all parties sign. I hope they get their funding but if they team up again, get those ducks in a neatly signed row next time!

    2. Anon Again... Naturally*

      Seconding the need for a further update. These people took the second chance you gave them and not only burned the fields, they salted the ground. I hope things work out okay for you, and you never have to deal with those two again (ideally because they’re chased out of the industry for their unethical behavior).

    3. What, why?*

      How awkward is it going to be for LW#1 if they are awarded the joint grant and have to administer it together for years? Yikes. I know closing your work unit for lack of funds and having to job hunt is not great but neither is being forced into a close and long-term partnership with those two vipers.

    4. Elan Morin Tedronai*

      When you’re in non-profit, you see donations and funding as a zero-sum game and so you start thinking of various ways and means to secure your own/increase your own share, which may or may not be at the expense of other orgs. This is especially true if you’re in a country (like mine) where donations have to fulfill certain government criteria to be tax-exempt and yours doesn’t fit the bill for whatever reason.

      All this to say, I don’t condone the Frozen Duo’s behaviour in any way, but I can see how this mentality would lead to their actions, and can freely confess to having considered, but never enacted, something similar during my time.

      I do not miss the non-profit sector.

    5. OP1*

      It really is! It’s now outside of my pay grade to sort out, and there are more “reset” meetings happening as we speak. Stay tuned!

      1. New Jack Karyn*

        Oh, man. Is there any way to just . . . not do the ‘reset’ meeting? Not work with Org B anymore?

    6. WoodswomanWrites*

      LW1, I am outraged on your behalf. I’m a nonprofit fundraiser and have worked with many partners over the years, and I can’t fathom a partner being so underhanded. I’m glad your CEO contacted the other org. What they did is beyond the pale, and if Sven and Elsa are keeping their jobs, that is so messed up.

      I’m sorry you’re now vulnerable to having the funding for your own position cut. I’m with the other commenters asking for an update. Good luck to you!

    7. Maz*

      My immediate response to the original letter was recollections may vary. My response to the update is how are Elsa and Sven still employed? We definitely need another update to this one.

    8. my little actuary*

      Another IBCK megafan reporting in! I listened to that episode three times for the cheese puns and demonic vibes.

    1. cindylouwho*

      There is a real culture of people who don’t view shoplifting necessities from major corporations as a victim-ed crime. I’m definitely not going to do it, but I do partially get where they’re coming from.

      1. New Yorker*

        It’s not really true that it’s victimless though. I’m in NYC where shoplifting is RAMPANT. And the result is that everything at the drugstore/Target – from lotion to ice cream! (seriously) to shower gel to band aids — is behind locked cases. You have to ring a bell and then wait for someone to come and unlock the case. For every item you want. Some places won’t even let you carry the item with you; you then have to pick it up behind the check-out counter.

        It’s SO.ANNOYING and such a waste of time. I try not to order things online (e.g. Amazon) because that only erodes local business, but it’s becoming more and more difficult. And then corporations raise prices so those of us who do pay end up subsidizing those who shoplift; and then they shoplift even more because the prices are even higher.

        1. Resentful Oreos*

          Yes to how annoying it is to find so many necessary items behind locked cases. My area is not notorious for crime, but my local drugstores, Target, and so on, lock up a lot of stuff anyway. You have to wait for a harried clerk to come unlock things, and this clerk usually has a row of customers trailing after them like ducklings while they go from case to case. It’s extremely inconvenient.

          I just order online from Walmart or Amazon these days. It’s less hassle. I know, local business, etc. but it’s a two-way street; they have to do their part to be inviting to customers as well, and shoplifters really ruin that for everyone.

          1. Strive to Excel*

            Often when a big chain implements new security stuff, *everyone* has to do it. Very annoying.

        2. JB*

          It’s not clear, though, whether putting things in locked cabinets are really due to existing rampant shoplifting or whether that’s the excuse the stores are using to put everything behind glass so that the store can cut down on the number of employees working in the store. Same with raising prices and closing stores; there have been stories debunking claims of corporations that shoplifting was causing the increased prices/store closures when what really happened was that the stores wanted to take those actions and they blamed it on shoplifting.

          I do agree, though, that it’s not a victimless crime. By definition, there is a victim–the store. We can debate whether that’s a victim we the general public needs to care about when the items being stolen aren’t necessities, but that’s not the same thing as whether or not there’s someone/an entity being stolen from.

          1. New Yorker*

            It’s due to rampant shoplifting. It actually takes *more* employees to have things locked up because now, in additional to the cashiers, the store has to have 1-2 roving employees to constantly unlock the cases.

            I’ve been in a Duane Reade where I literally saw someone shoveling items into a bag in front of the cashier, while she was yelling at him to stop stealing. He just walked out the door. I’ve seen people walk out of the store past security guards with items that were clearly stolen/shoplifted. There was an interesting/depressing article in the NY Times this past week about someone who stole from a Target in SoHo every.day until they locked up the stuff he stole.

            1. Palliser*

              I live in the East Village and read that NYT article as well. It really was depressing, and I miss being able to pick up toothpaste without at Target without assistance. You’re spot on!

              1. New Yorker*

                I think the most infuriating part to me was that he was reselling the items to bodegas – they clearly knew they were buying stolen goods! No one cares and there are no repercussions. It took one manager tracking the items until it totaled over $1,000 but how many managers will do that? And then in the mean time, I have to wait for someone to unlock a case to buy a $5 tube of CVS brand hand lotion; and feel like I can’t take time smell different shower gel scents because the employee is standing next to me waiting to lock up the case.

                1. Resentful Oreos*

                  Resellers! I think part of the problem could be solved if there was some way of really cracking down on resellers. Not secondhand sellers or garage-sale people or those who clean out their closets and sell on EBay, but those who knowingly take stolen goods for resale.

                  I know “it fell off the back of a truck, I swear” is a tale as old as time, but it keeps the mass shoplifters (as opposed to people who just swipe one thing) in business.

                  And words cannot describe how annoying it is to wait for a clerk to unlock a cabinet so I can get my toothpaste or whatever.

            2. boof*

              I am a little aghast that stealing isn’t prosecuted, NGL. I totally understand why employees are explicitly told not to get physical with anyone, that’s really unsafe for them, but is the idea that since any one theft is a misdemeanor so police won’t bother? @-@ yikes.

              1. New Yorker*

                Guessing you don’t live in NYC. There are all sorts of reasons (read: excuses) why people aren’t arrested/prosecuted/jailed for “petty” crimes like shoplifting or not paying the subway/bus fare. But that’s a discussion for another blog.

              2. doreen*

                It’s not that they aren’t prosecuted – it’s that as a result of bail reform shoplifters are given a date to appear in court rather than being held in custody which means there are fewer consequences now for casual shoplifters. Spending a night in jail every so often isn’t going to matter to the guy who knows he has at least 90 seconds before the police get there because he shoplifts daily – but the possibility probably did stop some non-professional thieves.

                1. Evan88*

                  This is a good thing though right? I mean, holding someone in jail until a court date for shoplifting is absurd.

                2. doreen*

                  Whether it’s a good thing or not is debatable – but in NYC if someone is actually arrested, they will usually be in court within 24 hours. ” Shoplifting” is not a separate crime . Any sort of larceny involving a theft under $1000 is a misdemeanor and they will be treated the same whether it involves shoplifting a stick of deodorant or stealing your purse off the back of a chair in a restaurant.

                3. LadyVet*

                  It’s not just “a night in jail,” though, especially since cops aren’t super picky about who they pick up for certain things. If you weren’t the shoplifter, and you lose your job because you can’t afford to post bond, you’re getting stuck in a vicious cycle.

                  It’s a miracle that Diddy’s still in jail awaiting trial, because a lot of wealthy people are able to get out on bond and get charges, even for violent offenses, swept under the rug, while people accused of jumping the turnstile waste away at Rikers awaiting trial.

                  I don’t doubt that shoplifting is a problem, and I would never say that it’s victimless, but the corporations have better options, and haven’t done anything to make their reasons credible.

            3. Irish Teacher.*

              Yeah, I was wondering how locking things up and requiring customers to find a staff member to open the cabinets would require less staff than letting customers just take items off the shelves and possibly even scan the items through a self-service checkout.

              I have no great trust in large corporations, but I suspect that if they want to cut down on staff, things like self-service checkouts or stuff like the way Lidls at least used to time cashiers to ensure they were scanning items quickly and therefore serving more people per cashier (20 years since I worked there, so I don’t know if that is still true) would be more effective than creating more work for staff.

          2. Myrin*

            I’m not familiar with this at all – this comment section is the first time I’ve heard of whole shops where everything is locked up – so I might be missing something obvious but I’m not following the “stuff behind glass = fewer employees” logic. Wouldn’t there have to be more employees if literally every customer needs to have literally everything they want unlocked instead of just grabbing it?

              1. Beany*

                Our local Target (DC metro area) recently installed locked glass cases for socks and related items. I couldn’t find anyone to unlock for me, so I ended up going to Marshall’s next door.

                1. TK*

                  Yeah, because in that store they’re apparently items that are heavily shoplifted. I was just trying to correct Myrin’s impression that this was literally about the entire store being locked up. (The fact that they said “shops” makes me guess they’re likely not American, and I think this locking-things-up phenomenon is largely a US thing.)

              2. doreen*

                That’s how it used to be and maybe it still is at Target – but at the chain drugstores in NYC at least half the store is locked up. If I wanted to buy deodorant, toothpaste, Tylenol and hand lotion, an employee would need to retrieve each of those items for me. Which is one reason I hardly ever buy anything there other than prescriptions.

            2. fhqwhgads*

              Correct. It causes either a need for more employees – because they need not only cashiers but people to unlock stuff – or the same amount of employees but now everyone waits longer because first you wait for someone to unlock it to get the item in the first place, and then you wait again while checking out because they’re unlocking something else for someone else. If any store actually goes the “even fewer employees” route, they’re creating a self-fulfilling prophecy where by it’s such a pain in the ass to shop there, fewer people do, so the understaffedness becomes right-staffed because now there are few customers.
              It’s not literally everything though. Ranges anywhere from just the most popular to steal stuff to something like half the merchandise.

          3. Clementine*

            I don’t think they are locking stuff up to save on employees. If there were no theft, then there’d be no need for the lockup and they would save on needing employees to unlock everything. Having locked cases also means that it’s much harder for customers to make spontaneous purchases, which also cuts their revenue.

            If a store has to close due to theft, the neighborhood is also a collateral victim, and all of its customers who relied on that store.

          4. Observer*

            whether that’s the excuse the stores are using to put everything behind glass so that the store can cut down on the number of employees working in the store.

            There could be a lot of reasons for this policy, but cutting down on staff is not one of them. Because the simple fact is that you need to have someone come over *every time* someone needs something – and ALSO every time someone just wants to *see* something.

          5. Jack Russell Terrier*

            Here in DC its endemic.

            There are actually ‘faganlike’ gangs where someone recruits teens and has them push out whole carts of tide and give it over to them and get paid

            They reduced the law on the value of what someone steals for it to be a criminal offence (I forget if only for a juvinile) so they saw it as free money.

            They’ve changed that back to a value higher I believe.

            There are so much more threads but police have been apparently trying to target the ‘gang leaders’ of these groups of thieves.

          6. The Gollux, Not a Mere Device*

            It’s not just to reduce staff. There are two CVS branches I use regularly. One has a lot more things locked up than the other, and it’s often hard to find an employee in either. I don’t know whether one has had more shoplifting than the other, or if the management just assumes they will because of the demographics of the location. (Variables that they might be looking at include age and race.)

            I’m not usually willing to stand around while they page an employee, repeatedly, in order to buy lotion. I still go there because it’s sometimes more convenient, but I’m more likely to walk out of that branch empty-handed, or with only part of what I was looking for.

          2. Beany*

            Can you clarify which part of New Yorker’s comment has been debunked by data? The entire content of the last paragraph (repeated below), or just part of it?

            “corporations raise prices so those of us who do pay end up subsidizing those who shoplift; and then they shoplift even more because the prices are even higher”

            And if so, can you supply a link to the data?

        4. But what to call me?*

          This summer my grocery store stopped letting people bring backpacks into the store because of shoplifting, which just resulted in me doing my grocery shopping at Target instead until they lifted the backpack ban because I’m not leaving my backpack with my laptop in the car (and certainly not in temperatures high enough to melt it) and I’m not going to go home, switch to a purse, and drive back to the grocery store after school. Fortunately they’ve either changed the rule or are no longer enforcing it.

        5. Nebula*

          Completely different country, so this may not apply, but here in the UK we have increasingly seen locks on high value items in supermarkets like the ones you describe. These are due to shoplifting, but not shoplifting in the sense it’s usually thought of i.e. one person sliding a few items into their bag (probably the sort of thing Alice was/is doing). It’s because of gangs who will come in and swipe entire shelves of goods to sell on the black market. When companies here talk about shoplifting being a problem, that’s mostly what they’re talking about, and it makes conversations about the topic difficult because the average person isn’t thinking about that particular thing when they hear the term ‘shoplifting’.

        6. iglwif*

          Having so much stuff in locked cases (which I have seen in several US cities I’ve been in over the past ~5 years — never seen it in Canada, although that doesn’t mean it never happens) is extremely annoying. It’s hard to imagine how making the shopping experience maximally unpleasant for both shoppers and staff is good for business!

          I do wonder, though, whether shoplifting is actually rampant or whether this phenomenon is one of those “everyone’s talking about it so it must be true” situations, like the current panic about trans kids being fast-tracked to surgery (they aren’t) or the panic about children undergoing “satanic ritual abuse” at daycares in the 1980s (they weren’t) or any of the various urban legend scarelore panics that go around periodically (rainbow parties, poisoned hallowe’en candy, poisoning from touching fentanyl, etc.)

          Like I know there was some kind of report in CA that said retail shrink had gone up massively year-over-year in spring 2021 … but it turned out they were doing a direct comparison to spring 2020 when all those stores were either closed or very very access-restricted, and comparing 2021 to 2019 showed either a slight decrease or a very similar rate (I forget which).

      2. Anonforthis*

        Shoplifting is not a ‘normal part of young adulthood’. This isn’t a cultural, religious or class situation. I know too many small business owners to find thieves cute or charming.

    2. Typity*

      Alice is a thief, just like people who take cash out of the register or steal packages off someone else’s porch. Not much lovable there.

      1. Evan88*

        I dunno. I stole eyeshadow from the K&B a few times as a teenager. I think I’m still pretty lovable. Although, K&B did eventually go out of business. I doubt it was because of me, although you never know….

      2. Meep*

        I am prefacing that I am a goody-two-shoes who has never shoplifted, but usually shoplifting as a teen is a cry for help. They cannot express their emotions at home so they lash out in a relatively harmless way at the end of the day.

        Alice could’ve been doing a lot worse. At least she owns it.

  6. Kes*

    Wow, what a set of updates! And I hadn’t actually read any of the originals, so quite the set of stories all in all.
    1 – what a rollercoaster. I think we’ll need an update to the update. Elsa and Sven are… really something. I’m sorry you have to work with them. Hopefully the funder sees through them (although… at this point you may not want to have to deal with a prolonged program with them). I hope the board starts to realize how messed up they are as well
    2 – it sounds like Alice had reason to need these items, but rummaging through your coworkers desk to take their keys is not really an okay thing in general, let alone when the person whose keys you’re trying to take is security! It’s not clear if she even tried to find/ask security guy in the first place, before going into his desk. She sounds very clueless about what is acceptable in the workplace, in a not great way
    3 – to me what you did sounds like a slight overstep but not that bad unless they had specifically told you to keep it quiet. But I’m glad everything worked out, for the hiring and for you.
    4 – what a great title. The religious accommodation here though is to provide non-alcoholic options, since that’s what her religion requires, not diet coke specifically. Agreed with Alison that in other contexts it would make sense to provide it anyway but she needs to understand here that it’s specifically against the values of the organization and that won’t be changing. Sounds like the situation was handled well though.

    1. OP1*

      Thanks – I live in hope that people above my pay grade will one day step in. Until then, I have more file notes to write!

  7. ubotie*

    “Apparently, for a lot of people it’s a pretty normal part of growing up and young adulthood that those of us who didn’t/don’t participate just have no idea about”

    Look, shoplifting for survival is one thing (and in my experience, the people who resort to it want to only do it for as shortly as possible, hate doing it, etc).

    But shoplifting for kicks and giggles doesn’t actually harm “The Man.” Yes, giant chain stores and mega-billion-dollar companies won’t miss that $9 from shoplifting a snack-size of chips. But it does hurt the minimum-wage employees and customers via suppressed wages and higher prices. Is that fair? No.

    And it *does* actually hurt the owners of small businesses, leading to higher prices, worse wages for employees (and/or fewer employees which all negatively impacts customer service), higher insurance rates, more security, etc.

    So Alice’s “fun, harmless” hobby is not actually all that “fun” and “harmless.” I’m a little surprised this link (or its follow-up) weren’t posted back when the original letter ran because it’s just as true/relevant then as it is now.

    https://tomatonation.com/vine/the-vine-september-19-2001/

    https://tomatonation.com/vine/the-vine-march-7-2002/

    2. Resentful Oreos*

      Tomato Nation! That brings back memories! I miss Sars! (Not the virus, Sarah the person)

      She’s right. Shoplifting is not sticking it to the man. If anything, it’s sticking it to the little guy who now has to wait for an overworked clerk to drop what they’re doing and unlock a case so they can get deodorant and Advil. Feh.

      Maybe I always ran with the wrong crowd, but I never was immersed in the “shoplifting is cool” culture. And I ran with some very…countercultural people!

      Even my friend who is an actual anarchist thinks it’s a terrible idea for various reasons. Mostly because it’s very ineffective at the Sticking It To The Man goal and risks you landing in jail.

      1. boof*

        My only experience with actual “shoplifting is cool” people tended to involve them also being monumentally entitled jerks. I mean, yes, as a teenager once I thought maybe it would be fun to walk off with a traffic cone. I was pretty rapidly called on it. Then I realized that was stupid and annoying and never attempted again.

        1. boof*

          * it was not a mission critical traffic cone, I feel the sudden need to clarify – just one of a long line in somewhere with low traffic

      2. Bumblebee*

        you can get weekly doses of Sars by listening to her various podcasts! I love Extra Hot Great and Again with This, and there is also Mark and Sarah talk about songs.

      3. Nina*

        I’ve known a couple of anarchists, and they stopped at dumpster-diving, because however you try to slice it, by putting (brand new toasters)(sacks of fresh bread)(weird-sized clothes) in the dumpster, the store has said ‘we do not want this stuff and we do not expect to get any profit out of it’ so ethically it’s fair game.

    3. Strive to Excel*

      Thing is – the giant chain stores *do* notice those chips going away, and there’s so much bad stuff that results.

      Things like highly-stolen items (which are also often things people feel very vulnerable about) then getting locked behind doors. This is annoying enough when it’s chips and soda, but feminine hygiene? Contraceptives? Toothbrushes and toothpaste? You *want* people to be able to access and purchase those easily.

      And all those costs aren’t being absorbed by the company. They’re being passed on to us as higher markups on products and lower wages for employees.

      The reply from the Vine was epic. 100/10.

      1. Wayward Sun*

        Baby formula is another big one. Often locked up because it’s frequently shoplifted, not for personal use but because it’s lucrative to resell.

        1. Frosty*

          I’d ask you to make one more step in that logic chain though – if baby formula is lucrative to sell (cheaper than at a store), who is buying the baby formula? Parents that can’t afford to pay full price.

          Might the theft of baby formula drop if there was more economical (cheaper/free) baby formula available to people that can’t afford to purchase it in regular stores? Maybe the responsibility lies with the community to donate these goods to food banks, or on governments to make laws limiting the amount of profit you can make on childcare goods?

          I’m not saying it’s morally good to steal baby formula, but it’s always important to think about the end buyer and why they might be buying stolen goods. (Baby) food for thought!

    4. FricketyFrack*

      I almost lost my first job on my second day because of shoplifters. They saw my baby face and correctly guessed that I didn’t know what I was doing (and I’d only received just as much training as it took to operate a register and nothing more), and came through my line with two full carts with several high-value items that had had their tags switched. I caught some of it, but not all, and my register was marked as being $200 short. Two shortages and you got fired.

      So yeah, shoplifters really stuck it to The Man with that one. Or to a literal child who was made to feel like garbage about it. Target didn’t care – they knew how short I was because security knew exactly what they stole and didn’t warn me or stop them.

      1. Resentful Oreos*

        But you’re so obviously bougie and entitled by being able to get a job as a teenager at a drugstore! (Obvious /s) See, this is the thing. Shoplifters are not sticking it to the CEO or the people in the C suite. At most they are sticking it to some poor checkout clerk who will get fired because their drawer is short. And that, in my book, is a very bad, excrement-y behavior.

    5. Kfish*

      What a shock that the guy who thought shoplifting was ‘sticking it to The Man’ went on to rip off his housemates. I’d be watching Alice too.

    6. Anonforthis*

      Agreed on every point. Stealing out of necessity is completely understandable and a sign that as a society, we are failing to look after the vulnerable.

      Stealing for fun is not harmless or cute.

    7. Meep*

      Shoplifting for “kicks and giggles” is usually sign of something else going on – whether it be mental illness or just plain cry for attention.

      As for raise in prices, cooperates have already been caught doing that despite seeing and increase in sales. Your anger is grossly misplaced.

      1. Deck cat*

        and yet that still doesnt actually excuse justify shoplifting or Alice’s other antics. She sounds like a nightmare to work with.

  8. cindylouwho*

    I feel like the security guard in LW2’s letter needs to apologize to Alice? She was just doing her job and he threatened to get her fired…

    1. Statler von Waldorf*

      No he doesn’t. She wasn’t “just doing her job.” She was attempting to break into a locked filing cabinet. That’s a criminal action all by itself in my jurisdiction, even if her intentions were as pure as the three feet of snow that fell here last week.

      If she needed something to do her job, that means she needs to talk to a manager about getting access to that. If a company doesn’t provide me with a PC, I can’t pull a slim-jim out of my pocket and break into the computer room and help myself, even if I need a PC to do my job. I’d get arrested. She got off lucky.

      I’ll save my comments on white women’s tears being used to avoid the consequences of one’s actions for another time, I don’t have time today for that pile-on.

      1. cindylouwho*

        She wasn’t “breaking into a locked cabinet.” She was literally just trying to open a cabinet that having access to is part of her job. You don’t even know if she’s white?

      2. IEanon*

        Meh, we have one or two desks with keys in them for expensive or secure items. When the person who manages those keys is at an event or out of the office for any reason, we definitely go into their office and grab them from the drawers. It’s been that way in every office I’ve worked in.

        If someone needs a laptop (forgot theirs, event offsite, spilled coffee on theirs, etc.), they can absolutely let themselves into the supply room and grab another one.

        Your desk at work is not your private property. We all have one locked drawer in our desks that’s off-limits (though not all of us use it), but the rest is open to your coworkers, since we don’t own the furniture. Norms are not the same across all employers.

        1. Statler von Waldorf*

          You’re right that norms are not the same across all employers. I can only speak to mine, which have all been clear that accessing secured materials without authorization will get you fired. I have personally processed the firing paperwork for a receptionist who was fired for letting an employee have access to a locked room. She was fired for cause, even though nothing was stolen. She appealed, and she lost that appeal.

          To give you some background on why I feel so strongly about this, my current desk contains confidential information that I have a legal duty to protect, and I can be held liable under local privacy laws if the information in that desk is not protected. I take that seriously, and I’m not dealing with getting sued and fined because a co-worker thinks my locked desk is free real estate. And yes, I have dealt with that exact issue.

          1. nnn*

            Different jobs have different contexts. It’s not surprising that rules from one environment with one set of needs don’t apply universally.

            1. Anonforthis*

              Sure, but most workplaces agree that the keys of the *security officer* are not a free for all.

              1. Resident Catholicville, U.S.A.*

                Hopefully the keys for anything truly important were on his person and not thrown in an unlocked desk, as it sounds like these keys were. We’re talking about security at a library open to the public, not a high end jewelry store or a tech lab or bank, where apparently security protocols are a lot stricter.

        2. Nodramalama*

          Yes and considering that the person is in security and they were not happy with their desk being rifled through, I’m not sure why you’d apply your company’s norm. At MY company going through the desk of the security people would be a serious breach.

      3. Daphne*

        She wasn’t trying to pick the lock; she was looking for keys. Using keys to access something you are authorized to access is hardly breaking in, and it’s hardly a criminal action.

        1. Wayward Sun*

          It may not be criminal, but most places I’ve worked taking another employee’s keys is frowned upon at best and usually a policy violation. Mind you, so is leaving them unattended in your desk drawer.

        2. Statler von Waldorf*

          Tell that to people who get fired and sued for improperly accessing medical records even though they are authorized to access those records and are given digital keys in the form of passwords to do so.

          1. Evan88*

            I would be pretty surprised if there were private medical records in the desk of a security guard at a public library. I’m not sure why you’re applying your workplace norms to this situation.

            1. Nodramalama*

              Well the person is in Security. So actually they very well could have sensitive personnel or security information in their drawer that it would be inappropriate for other people to go through.

      4. New Jack Karyn*

        She’s allowed to access the filing cabinet. It is, in fact, part of her job. This is one of those things where a change to the system was necessary–having a couple of duplicates, maybe–so there’s not a point of failure.

        I agree with you about white women’s tears.

    2. PurpleShark*

      Well, she admitted proudly that she shoplifts. Then she wants to get into a locked drawer but does not want to ask the owner of the desk she is trying to get into for assistance. If someone thinks she is a thief, then she has only herself to blame for that misunderstanding. I see where you are coming from, but apologizing to her for thinking she is stealing is not an outlandish thought here.

      1. In My Underdark Era*

        eh, we don’t even know if Security Guy knows about the shoplifting comment. it could be common knowledge in the library by now or it could have been a throwaway comment in april that two people heard and never brought up again, we just don’t know. I know for a lot of people that would change their read of the situation, but for all we know Alice could have a totally normal workplace reputation among those who weren’t listening to that conversation.

    3. Nodramalama*

      Lol no the security guard does not. The only reason to go through SECURITY’S locked drawer is if it was an emergency. A reasonable person would wait for the security person to return to their desk and ask them to open the drawer.

    1. cindylouwho*

      It is kind of hilarious to make the mocktails “healthy” but then also serve beer and wine.

  10. hello*

    OP1 as others have said I hope legal is getting involved. My comment isn’t fair to you but I’d almost start looking for another job so that Sven and Elsa can’t rely on your expertise. You have time now to search while waiting for the funding reply to start your search. Just pondering do you really want to work/ coordinate with such people. It sounds like your boss is on your side for a great reference. If you decide not to look for another position (stand your ground), I’d demand to everyone everywhere to be taken off all projects involving Sven and Elsa. I am so angry for you. They truly backstabbed you and threw you under the bus. We definitely need an update!

    1. Grant anon*

      “They truly backstabbed you and threw you under the bus.”
      Oof, yeah. The sheer brazeness of their behaviour is truly something else.

    2. OP1*

      Thanks! I’m always keeping an eye on what’s out there, and have no desire to work with Sven and Elsa any more than politeness or the law dictates.

  11. Griffin Diore*

    WRT #4: I hope that Jane’s solution was choosing one of the mocktails be virgin Rum & (diet) Coke.

  12. Resentful Oreos*

    LW1 – I really, truly am pulling for you to be able to find a new job stat! Sven and Elsa are pieces of work. They are THE WORST! Terrible, terrible people, untrustworthy coworkers, and I hope that the book gets thrown at them somehow. It’s good that you have notes and files and a paper trail; here is where you will need them.

    LW2: I discussed the morality or lack thereof about shoplifting in some comments, but I want to address Alice: if she is going to brag about being a thief, she shouldn’t be surprised Pikachu when someone doesn’t trust her rummaging through their desk! I wouldn’t yell at the security guard – Alice didn’t present herself as trustworthy, and then went through his desk without asking, so of course he might assume the worst. Alice played a stupid game, and was lucky to just win a bubblegum-machine level of stupid prize here.

    If keeping necessary supplies accessible rather than locked up will help, then that might be something you could consider. It doesn’t sound like Alice is a bad person, just clueless as to how she might come across to others. At least she was open about it, not like Elsa and Sven, I guess? But lesson here for her and others: if you want people to trust you, then don’t brag about your untrustworthy or illegal activities.

  13. KT*

    Omg I love the podcast drop about Who Moved My Cheese? For anyone who is interested, I’m guessing it was the one dropped by If Books Could Kill, which is a podcast by a former investigative reporter and former lawyer about how bad science in pop culture science books messes with society.

    1. Generic Name*

      I took a leadership class at my last job, and one class consisted entirely of each person in the class taking turns reading the entirety of Who Moved My Cheese aloud. Yes, it was as painful as you’d imagine it to be.

  14. What, why?*

    I’m concerned how many commenters don’t seem to find Alice’s behavior out of line, or even find her to be an awesome chaos problem solver. I don’t think the OP is doing Alice any favors if she thinks it is generally acceptable to be rummaging a coworker’s desk, taking keys not issued to her and taking items from a locked cabinet, even if she was planning to use them within scope.

    At my workplace, this would be termination for cause and potential charges, not an exaggeration. I’m a CPA so the standards may be different but this is not a workplace norm. A newer employee needs to either find the holder of the desk/keys or a more senior employee to assist and not just help themselves to whatever they want just because.

    1. Wayward Sun*

      I’m entrusted with master keys for most of the building. I’d be pretty unhappy (and probably in trouble) if an Alice got hold of them and started going around taking stuff.

      1. What, why?*

        Exactly! In my workplace, the employees with keys are responsible for the items that are locked up, getting sign out sheets, approvals for issuance, cost chargebacks and grant itemized lists, etc. Businesses with reasonable internal controls and/or federal funding of supplies and equipment don’t just let people take whatever they want because they all have good intentions dontcha know.

    2. Statler von Waldorf*

      Same here.

      Apparently, most people can just grab whatever they want at their offices. I’m honestly wondering how many businesses actually have any form of internal controls for supplies as my experiences are clearly not universal here.

      1. Strive to Excel*

        Depends on the business and the supplies.

        The rule of controls is/should be that the effort made to keep the control should not exceed the amount of benefit expected from said control. A control over keeping people from grabbing a bic pen from the supply cabinet is silly…but not one where only specific people can make orders for the company and someone’s reviewing the operating expenses for a division on a month-end basis.

        In this case it sounds like there was a problem in control design – only one person had the key, resulting in employees being prevented from doing the work they needed.

    3. Strive to Excel*

      Standards, most likely.

      It’s been real weird to move from a Thou Shalt Not Leave Computer Unattended Under Pain of Termination to my current job where people mostly don’t bother to lock their screens…but we’re not in a client-facing position in this office and generally not travelling.

      Going through someone else’s desk is still pretty rude.

    4. Parakeet*

      I’ve noticed in past threads that there’s a decent-sized set of commenters who work in workplaces/sectors that are very highly regulated (usually rightfully so) when it comes to stuff like this. And then there’s a set of commenters who do not. And there’s a culture clash in situations like this, a disconnect to the point where people have trouble fathoming each other’s norms.

      (I work from home so I have no direct stake in this particular manifestation of this culture clash. It’s just something I’ve noticed over the years I’ve spent reading this comment section.)

      1. Coverage Associate*

        On the particular issue of a key that several employees could legitimately use, the arrangement of having it in a desk drawer is something I have seen in a couple offices, especially when it’s cleaners that are the concern, rather than day time employees. But in those situations the key was in a shared desk or at least a drawer understood to be public not in a place where personal items were also kept.

        I can kind of see an employee used to that arrangement being told “get the key from so and so. He has it in his desk,” and finding him not at his desk, feeling ok with looking in a drawer. If the key is very important or with important keys, several people shouldn’t know where it’s kept and or it should be kept with the employee, not in an unlocked desk.

      2. Resident Catholicville, U.S.A.*

        I’ve only worked in pretty generic offices where some stuff was confidential, but nothing was hardcore locked down like it is in some industries. I can imagine that in those instances, Alice’s behavior wouldn’t be tolerated and she’d be fired. However, that doesn’t sound like it was that way in this case. It’s bizarre to me that commenters can’t seem to extrapolate that not all workplaces have to be Ft. Knox.

        And the people who are saying that Alice should have known Security Guy would be mad because of her reputation- well, in the original letter, she only mentions three people in the room when Alice commented about shoplifting: herself (OP), Alice, and Cindy. We have no way of knowing if Security Guy knows about Alice’s shoplifting or if she’s exhibited that behavior at work- all we know was that he was mad about her being in his desk but eventually acknowledged she had a right to access that cabinet.

      3. Strive to Excel*

        In fairness to those of us coming from the highly regulated side, a lot of us have to read the statistics of how many businesses get hit because they don’t have basic controls.

        In fairness to those *not* coming from highly regulated industries, a beanie cap and a water bottle should maybe not need to be kept in a locked cabinet.

    5. fhqwhgads*

      I don’t find her to be any kind of problem solver. She rummaged whcih was clearly unexpected and pissed off the guy. But she had a good reason for needing the thing. So….she accidentally got the policy changed? If this was a frequent thing – people needed access and key-haver was not around – did they not just say that, outloud, every time? If they did and her doing what she did somehow got it changed but the regular ol’ stating the problem didn’t…that’s not her being effective, that’s the situation being ridiculous.

    6. NaoNao*

      Yeah, there seems to be a lot of almost wishful thinking that being a “badazz” like Alice (who steals for fun and brags about it!!, tries to open locked cabinets by force rather than waiting for whomever to return or handling the need in another way like “oops, this is locked, can you come back tomorrow?” and then cries her way out of what sounds like a relatively reasonable talking-to) is cool and edgy and interesting, rather than the eyeroll at best it sounds like to me. Maybe I’m an Old and a Pearl Clutcher but I side eye Alice “types” rather hard myself.

  15. boof*

    LW1 – mind = blown! How on earth did Elsa and Sven think that was going to work? I mean, I understand the underhanded villain plot where they submit the same app / somewhere else / with everything they gained from LW’s org, but how on earth did they think conflicting applications to the same place would fly? Just hope they were submitting to some giant machine that had so many applications that it wouldn’t notice they submitted two apps, and/or wouldn’t be concerned about the +/- collaboration? Phew – LW feel free to share both stories to anyone and everyone who tries to work with Elsa or tries to get you to work with Elsa again. At this point they deserve the rep they’ve earned and being discrete about it only benefits them.

  16. WellRed*

    I’m not nearly as charmed by Alice as OP seems to be but as long as you keep your belongings locked away, go for it. She sounds immature or possibly manipulative. And shoplifting is often a rite of passage for kids, it’s not normal to keep doing it and brag about it. At work!

  17. Mrs. Pommeroy*

    LW3, I’m very glad your misstep was seen as just that by your manager and Ben! I would have been just as worried for my career and friendship as you were and it’s lovely to see your misstep was instead handled reasonably and considerately. I am sure your willingness to admit your mistake and readily apologise for it played an important part in that, too. Everybody makes mistakes – how you handle them being pointed out to you often says more about someone’s character than the original mistake does. And you handled it very maturely.
    I wish you all the best for your possible new position!

  18. Carmina*

    LW3 – it sounds like the only reason it was a misstep was because they had already planned for somebody specific to take the role! Which would be a huge no at my org: every position must be listed and every applicant must be given a fair shot. The goal of the policy is to avoid favoritism and discrimination. It doesn’t sound to me like they were considering all the potential applicants… So now I feel that LW3 was even less in the wrong than before!

    1. Princess Paul*

      Agree completely. Ben and the OP’s manager are pretty slimy, putting out fake job opportunities and wasting people’s time. It’s a good indication of their ethics (or lack of ethics), and should be factored into future interactions.

      1. LW3*

        LW3 here, I do feel like I should clarify: The position was never formally posted or described to anyone. The person they hired had previously worked at our company (and recently, at that), so they never opened a “formal” hiring process as far as I know. They just contacted her, said, “please come back?”, and she accepted.

        So they weren’t wasting anyone’s time – the only person who ever said there was going to be a job posting was me, and I was wrong about that. Part of why it was such a problem. This wasn’t a situation where they were ‘faking’ a job posting when they actually had someone already in mind. There was never going to be a posting unless the person they wanted declined the opportunity. I didn’t know that, and didn’t ask, and made a bunch of assumptions that were wrong as a result.

        In all honesty, that doesn’t bother me. I don’t think it was slimy. They had a need and knew who would fill it, and asked that person to do so, and she said yes.

  19. Jack Straw from Wichita*

    “employee is demanding Diet Coke as a religious accommodation” is still one of my favorite WTactualF? AAM titles. Loved seeing the update on this one!

  20. Ms. Chanandeler Bong*

    I’m *really* hoping that OP#2 is an “If Books Could Kill” fan! Everyone should be….

Comments are closed.