<p>Robin Hoodism refers to managers taking justice into their own hands by compensating employees they deem mistreated by the organization or its leaders. Because such behaviors involve misappropriating organizational resources, it is important to determine the perceived ethicality of such behavior. The present research examines how coworkers of an unjustly treated victim judge the ethicality of a managerial Robin Hoodism. In Studies 1 (<i>N </i>= 604) and 2 (<i>N</i> = 466), managers engaging in Robin Hoodism to compensate mistreated employees from historically marginalized groups were rated as more ethical than managers who adhered to company policy and withheld compensation. These effects were mediated by third-party moral outrage toward the manager and moderated by third parties’ rule-following concerns, such that the effects were weaker among third-party coworkers who reported higher (versus lower) rule-following tendencies. Ethicality judgments of Robin Hoodism were negatively associated with punishment and positively related to supportive behaviors toward the Robin Hood. In Study 3 (<i>N</i> = 139), critical incidents revealed that third-party ethicality judgments of Robin Hoodism were associated with real-world consequences. We conclude by discussing the theoretical contributions of this work to the deontic justice and Robin Hood literatures and provide practical implications for managers.</p>