$25 Million awarded to ex-Starbucks Manager for Race-based Firing

[ThatRobGuy]

A straw man and a false dichotomy in a single post. Kudos?

How so? This is a story about a white person being wrongfully being terminated because of "how it may look to the public" after kicking out two non-paying loiterers who happened to be Black, correct?

And you did immediately chalk it up to "white grievance"...literally in the first reply to the OP (16 minutes after the thread was started)

In order to come to that conclusion that it's some sort of petty "white grievance" with regards to how it pertains to this story, one would have to be operating under one of the two premises I mentioned before so it's not a strawman.

Someone losing their livelihood for reporting something that's not allowed after the people failed to respond to a polite request to leave isn't "white grievance", it's a legitimate grievance. White grievance would be if someone from an snooty, predominately white neighborhood called the cops because they were at a public park, and saw Black people who they "didn't think belonged in this neighborhood"

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I might be mistaken, but typically the amount includes punitive damages

$600,000 in actual damages and $25M punitive. This will probably be reduced on appeal.

In this particular case, are the punitive damages paid to the wronged employee, or to the local/state government?

I'm okay with the employee collecting the 600k, but if Starbucks is on the hook for $25M in punitive damages, it should go towards some sort of public good and not in the pocket of the wronged employee.


I think it sets a bad precedent if a single person gets rich of someone else punishment (even if it's a justified punishment)


If this were a case where the wronged employee got $600k, and the $25M was paid to the state and they used it for their infrastructure or education budget, I'd have no problem with that.

Otherwise, it incentivizes gratuitous lawsuits.

 

[friend of]

Were they so broke they couldn't just, buy a 3 dollar coffee?

 

[Arcangl86]

I'm fairly sure that NJ state law limits the amount of punitive damages to less then a million. But generally speaking juries aren't told that before hand.

ETA: So apparently it's 5 time the compensatory damages or $350k, whichever is greater. So about $3 million, which of course is still a lot of money.

 

[hislegacy]

In this particular case, are the punitive damages paid to the wronged employee, or to the local/state government?

I'm okay with the employee collecting the 600k, but if Starbucks is on the hook for $25M in punitive damages, it should go towards some sort of public good and not in the pocket of the wronged employee.


I think it sets a bad precedent if a single person gets rich of someone else punishment (even if it's a justified punishment)


If this were a case where the wronged employee got $600k, and the $25M was paid to the state and they used it for their infrastructure or education budget, I'd have no problem with that.

Otherwise, it incentivizes gratuitous lawsuits.

I don’t think you will ever see that happen.

 

[comana]

Were they so broke they couldn't just, buy a 3 dollar coffee?

That we’re waiting for another to arrive. I’ve seen no indication that they were not intending to order after that.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That we’re waiting for another to arrive. I’ve seen no indication that they were not intending to order after that.

Sounds like a jury of their peers didn't find their defense very compelling.

Not sure if this particular article covers it, but the guys said they were waiting for a 3rd party to arrive to talk about some sort of real estate business meeting.

I can understand why the jury wasn't super convinced by that. (and this is a Philadelphia jury, which means it's not like the jury was stacked with right-wing conservatives)

1) I don't know too many people who show up to an important real-estate meeting with a potential new investment partner wearing sweatpants. (perhaps times have changed a bit, but I wouldn't even wear sweatpants to a "non-important" meeting with co-workers/clients that I already knew.

2) The were politely asked to order something or leave 3 times, refused all 3 times, and then when the police showed up, refused to leave again.


What's even more odd is that Robinson and Nelson agreed to a settlement with Starbucks for an undisclosed sum and an offer of free college tuition to complete bachelor's degrees through an online program with Arizona State University that was created four years ago for Starbucks employees.


So there's an altercation between a Starbucks manager and these two guys, they fire the manager, the two guys got arrested... Starbucks ends up shelling out to everyone involved.

 

[Goonie]

If your not prepared to shell out $5 or so for the cheapest coffee, your not there for a real estate deal.

 

[Arcangl86]

If your not prepared to shell out $5 or so for the cheapest coffee, your not there for a real estate deal.

Or they didn't want to order until everybody was there. Whenever I do meetings in a coffeeshop, I wait until ordering.

 

[Goonie]

Or they didn't want to order until everybody was there. Whenever I do meetings in a coffeeshop, I wait until ordering.

And the third party arrived as they were arrested. So i was hasty in responding to this thread. Starbuck's appear to have discriminated twice over on the two people meeting for a business meeting and in regard to a manager not immediately involved.

 

[USincognito]

How so? This is a story about a white person being wrongfully being terminated because of "how it may look to the public" after kicking out two non-paying loiterers who happened to be Black, correct?

And you did immediately chalk it up to "white grievance"...literally in the first reply to the OP (16 minutes after the thread was started)

In order to come to that conclusion that it's some sort of petty "white grievance" with regards to how it pertains to this story, one would have to be operating under one of the two premises I mentioned before so it's not a strawman.

Someone losing their livelihood for reporting something that's not allowed after the people failed to respond to a polite request to leave isn't "white grievance", it's a legitimate grievance. White grievance would be if someone from an snooty, predominately white neighborhood called the cops because they were at a public park, and saw Black people who they "didn't think belonged in this neighborhood"

My comment wasn't about the story in the OP.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

My comment wasn't about the story in the OP.

Then what was it about? There were no other posts in the thread at the time you posted this

...apart from the comments from the original poster (who's Malaysian)

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yeah, stuff “happens” it’s a funny ol’ world and what some people feel we should remember is this “story”.
Why?

It was pretty big at the time....you don't remember this? I recall it as an early on the job cancelation....though no one knew the manager's name. The training they implemented afterwards was copied by many corporations.

 

[Ana the Ist]

And the third party arrived as they were arrested. So i was hasty in responding to this thread. Starbuck's appear to have discriminated twice over on the two people meeting for a business meeting and in regard to a manager not immediately involved.

Indeed, I recall another patron claiming it was racism because others hadn't ordered and had not been asked to leave.

I also recall employees stating it was store policy due to lack of seating.