The narrator, a 20-year-old female, experienced repeated theft of her prepared lunches at work, which was causing significant distress. The issue escalated beyond small amounts, with the thief consuming entire meals and leaving dirty, empty containers in the office refrigerator.
Feeling extremely upset because the food was intentionally prepared for personal health reasons, the narrator devised a plan to catch the culprit, involving informing trusted colleagues and obtaining a doctor’s note as preemptive protection. After two weeks of planning, she laced her food and juice with a laxative, and the thief, who turned out to be the manager, ate it, leading the narrator to feel a mix of temporary satisfaction and growing anxiety about the consequences.
AITAH for giving my manager diarrhea after eating my lunch?
As organizational psychologist Dr. Christine Maslany notes, “When formal channels for conflict resolution fail, individuals often resort to informal, sometimes retaliatory, tactics because they feel they have lost agency in the situation.”
The situation describes a clear breakdown in workplace norms, where the manager abused a position of power by repeatedly stealing from a subordinate. The narrator’s response, while rooted in justifiable anger over the violation of personal boundaries and property, escalated into an act of sabotage by using a laxative. This action transforms the narrator from a victim into someone who has committed a potentially harmful act, creating a significant power imbalance reversal. The narrator’s actions were an attempt to reclaim control and enforce a boundary that the established workplace structure failed to uphold, but by using medication, she introduced a serious element of personal liability and health risk.
From a professional standpoint, the narrator’s action was inappropriate and risky. While the frustration is understandable, sabotaging food is never a constructive resolution. In future conflicts, the narrator should have documented the thefts and immediately escalated the issue formally to HR or a trusted senior manager, emphasizing the repeated nature of the theft and the violation of personal space. Relying on informal methods, especially those involving substances, exposes the individual to severe disciplinary action.
THE COMMENTS SECTION WENT WILD – REDDIT HAD *A LOT* TO SAY ABOUT THIS ONE.
The narrator is currently experiencing conflict between feeling justified revenge for the violation of her personal property and intense worry regarding potential health repercussions for her manager and professional repercussions for herself from Human Resources. Her initial anger has shifted toward fear of retaliation or punishment.
The core question remains whether the extreme measure taken to stop the theft was an acceptable form of self-defense against repeated workplace misconduct, or if the action crosses a professional and ethical line, leaving the narrator vulnerable to disciplinary action despite being the initial victim.
