- PetSmart was not negligent in its hiring or training.
- Aurand was acting outside the scope of her employment.
- Noor was entitled only to $5,000 in past noneconomic damages.
Noor’s total award amount of $5,000, is merely a fraction of the $1.5 million in total damages she sought. The verdict came after the jury determined Aurand was not acting within her job scope when she physically confronted Noor over a $5 price discrepancy.
The incident began when Noor and her husband visited the store to purchase dog food and a toy. Noor selected what she believed was a clearance item priced at $3, but it scanned at $8. According to court records, the pricing disagreement escalated into a physical altercation where Aurand pushed Noor, broke her glasses, and pulled her hair.
Noor testified that Aurand directed racial slurs at her and her husband, with Noor’s husband claiming he heard Aurand call him an “N-word lover” and tell Noor to “go back to your own country.” Aurand, who pleaded guilty to criminal misdemeanor assault, maintained that Noor provoked the confrontation by calling her “stupid” and “white trash.”
“This case is more than just a dispute. It’s about what was taken from her,” Noor’s attorney Gasper Stare of Marko Law PLLC told jurors during closing arguments, emphasizing that his client still becomes emotional discussing the incident.
Stare argued that Aurand, as the highest-ranking manager on duty with store keys, was acting on behalf of PetSmart when the assault occurred. He criticized the company for treating the incident as “just a dispute” and failing to call police immediately.
PetSmart’s defense attorney Justin Hakala of Kerr Russell & Weber countered that Aurand’s actions directly violated company human resources policies and served no business purpose. “When Aurand put her hands on Noor, she was not furthering PetSmart’s business interests,” Hakala argued.
The jury’s findings absolved PetSmart of negligent hiring and training claims, determining the company could not be held vicariously liable for an employee’s criminal conduct that fell outside job responsibilities.
Aurand’s attorney Anthony Pignotti of Foley Baron Metzger & Juip argued that while physical contact was inappropriate, Noor bore at least 50% responsibility for escalating the situation. He noted that Noor declined immediate medical care and limited her PTSD counseling to three telehealth visits.
The case highlighted ongoing tensions around retail workplace violence and employer liability standards. Police reports notably omitted mention of racial remarks, which Hakala suggested indicated they didn’t occur, since race-based assault would have elevated the charge to a felony.
The case is Noor v. PetSmart Inc. et al., case number 2:22-cv-10527, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
