Posted on 04/22/2018 9:38:46 AM PDT by Cubs Fan
The former Starbucks manager who called the police on two non-paying black customers earlier this month may have a good case for bringing a defamation suit against the coffee company.
In numerous public statements, Starbucks and its CEO Kevin Johnson have gone out of their way to imply that the the female manager, identified in media reports as Holly Hylton, was acting on subconscious racial motivations when she told the loitering customers to either buy a beverage or get out of her store. Crucially, Starbucks has also strongly implied that, as a factual matter, the manager violated company policy.
The LEFT eating their own. Good stuff. Good stuff.
When will the little LEFTIES realize that eventually they will be on the LEFTIST menu and subject to the tyranny that they promote.
Never.
I recall a vague, 'she's no longer with the company'.
If she took a payoff it might be more difficult to win a case but a good lawyer can find a way around it.
Policies in a suburban location are probably not the same as those in urban locations. From a practical perspective urban outdoorsmen make a difference in how you have to handle things.
When enough liberals finally feel the unfairness of their own policies, then things might turn around. But it takes a lot to make liberals wake up.
Accepting a non disclosure agreement would be cowardly. How does one get their reputation back? I’m sure she can be bought like all leftists. I would insist that the agreement be reopened if the 2 ‘gentlemen’ sue and end up with a bigger settlement.
I've wondered since this started just what the Starbucks policy is, if they have one, corporate wide policy on loitering and public use of bathrooms. That seems to be one of the key questions and I haven't seen a clear answer yet.
How hard can it be for Starbucks to state their policy, if they have a clear and written policy?
If they don't have that, then this former manager should become a multi-millionaire.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/starbucks-lacks-clear-guidance-for-employees-on-non-paying-customers-1524308400
...all of the company-owned Starbucks in the Philadelphia area have signs informing people that the bathrooms and the lobby are for paying customers only.
That must be behind the WSJ pay wall, but if true and such a sign was in that particular Starbucks, then the CEO is an idiot and ripe for a major law suit. But if such a sign is in that store, one would think at least several news outlets would have photographed it and reported about it.
It just makes no sense that multiple news outlets have been unable, or unwilling, to nose out the information to clear up the company policy, or local policy question.
Does racism qualify for defamation? I don’t think so.
MAYBE, BUT Most of the news orgs are liberal. They would gladly leave that out. Just like the way they deliberately leave off illegal when talking about illegal immigrants. Why ruin a good liberal narrative with facts to the contrary?
being called a racist wrongly does and it should. Its the lefts favorite sleazeball weapon.
https://vaaju.com/starbucks-lacks-clear-guidance-for-employees-of-non-paying-customers/
..all of the company-owned Starbucks in the Philadelphia area have signs informing people that the bathrooms and the lobby are for paying customers only.
“I understand that rules are rules, but what’s right is right, and what’s wrong is wrong,” Robinson said. “That’s in any situation, whether there’s race involved or anything.”
The above is from the Compost story linked in post #30, from Robinson, one of the "victims". So he has deemed that his experience is above and beyond any rules and must be judged in some higher sense of right and wrong that makes him a victim, supposedly.
So there Robinson seems to admit he knew the rules in that Starbucks, rules set for all, not just him and his sidekick.
If some court doesn't untangle this nonsense and set it right, then things are worse than most probably believed, at least in some parts of the country.
If that’s true, and also that the “victims” knew the rules for that Starbucks, then we’ve got legions of folks acting like PC fools in what is really a very simple, commonplace, everyday situation
I would think the non-disclosure agreement works both ways. I would be suing in California due to the better laws since they are throwing her under the bus.
She should be compensated in an amount equal to the value of all Starbucks coffee sold in that store since its opening, oh...wait...that wouldn’t be right, she wouldn’t get anything that way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.