Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on September 16, 2015, 01:59:19 PM
-
Good. Find someplace else to work. And don't ever call 911 asking for help.
Whataburger fires employee for refusing to serve police officers
Published September 16, 2015
FoxNews.com
A Texas Whataburger employee was fired Wednesday for refusing to serve two police officers in what the company is describing as an appalling incident.
Officers Michael Magovern and Cameron Beckham were working off-duty security at a construction site on I-35 early Wednesday morning when they decided to stop at the restaurant in Lewisville, FOX 26 reports.
Magovern said before he could even place his order, the man behind the counter told him “We don’t serve police officers.”
The two officers decided to leave and went and got food at Dairy Queen instead.
"We were appalled to hear of an employee refusing service to two officers, as we have proudly served first responders across our system for decades,” Whataburger said in a statement Wednesday. “As soon as we heard of this isolated incident, we began our own internal investigation overnight. The employee that refused service is no longer employed with Whataburger. We've also invited the officers back today so we can apologize in person and make this right."
Magovern told Fox 26 that in “17 years as a firefighter and now 13 years as a police officer this is the first time this has ever happened to me.”
Click for more from Fox 26.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/09/16/whataburger-fires-employee-for-refusing-to-serve-police-officers/?intcmp=hplnws
-
Same thing happened at an Arbys here just the other week.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/09/04/florida-arby-fires-manager-suspends-clerk-who-refused-to-serve-police-officer/
-
Pretty dumb way to protest.
-
Good. Find someplace else to work. And don't ever call 911 asking for help.
Whataburger fires employee for refusing to serve police officers
Published September 16, 2015
FoxNews.com
A Texas Whataburger employee was fired Wednesday for refusing to serve two police officers in what the company is describing as an appalling incident.
Officers Michael Magovern and Cameron Beckham were working off-duty security at a construction site on I-35 early Wednesday morning when they decided to stop at the restaurant in Lewisville, FOX 26 reports.
Magovern said before he could even place his order, the man behind the counter told him “We don’t serve police officers.”
The two officers decided to leave and went and got food at Dairy Queen instead.
"We were appalled to hear of an employee refusing service to two officers, as we have proudly served first responders across our system for decades,” Whataburger said in a statement Wednesday. “As soon as we heard of this isolated incident, we began our own internal investigation overnight. The employee that refused service is no longer employed with Whataburger. We've also invited the officers back today so we can apologize in person and make this right."
Magovern told Fox 26 that in “17 years as a firefighter and now 13 years as a police officer this is the first time this has ever happened to me.”
Click for more from Fox 26.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/09/16/whataburger-fires-employee-for-refusing-to-serve-police-officers/?intcmp=hplnws
I'm sure the officers wouldn't think of accepting anything free from the restaurant.
Sounds like the guy was joking, which made them paranoid about having their food tampered with (which caused them to go somewhere else), and that's what happened.
-
Same thing happened at an Arbys here just the other week.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/09/04/florida-arby-fires-manager-suspends-clerk-who-refused-to-serve-police-officer/
what if it was a male cop married to another man? whole new ballgame
-
I'm sure the officers wouldn't think of accepting anything free from the restaurant.
Sounds like the guy was joking, which made them paranoid about having their food tampered with (which caused them to go somewhere else), and that's what happened.
That's not what the story says. Did you read that somewhere else?
-
That's not what the story says. Did you read that somewhere else?
I haven't read anything more on it than what you posted. Is there something that conflicts with what I said?
-
I haven't read anything more on it than what you posted. Is there something that conflicts with what I said?
I didn't read anything about the employee joking or the officers being concerned about their food being tampered with?
-
I didn't read anything about the employee joking or the officers being concerned about their food being tampered with?
The officers took it upon themselves to choose to go elsewhere, which certainly wasn't for the sake of convenience. Isn't that true?
-
The officers took it upon themselves to choose to go elsewhere, which certainly wasn't for the sake of convenience. Isn't that true?
They went elsewhere because the business refused to serve them.
-
They went elsewhere because the business refused to serve them.
You believe they were so ignorant as to think they were being legitimately refused service. Is that what you're saying?
-
If they didn't do their job, they should get fired. Or maybe they should have asked for "reasonable accommodation of their beliefs" and not serve cops. ::)
From the story it appears these cops were working off-duty security. How did the employees determine the customers were cops?
-
If they didn't do their job, they should get fired. Or maybe they should have asked for "reasonable accommodation of their beliefs" and not serve cops. ::)
From the story it appears these cops were working off-duty security. How did the employees determine the customers were cops?
I think they were moonlighting in uniform.
-
You believe they were so ignorant as to think they were being legitimately refused service. Is that what you're saying?
I have no idea if they "legitimately" believed they were being refused service. I'm saying the story says this:
Magovern said before he could even place his order, the man behind the counter told him “We don’t serve police officers.”
The two officers decided to leave and went and got food at Dairy Queen instead.
That says nothing about a joke or food tampering.
-
I have no idea if they "legitimately" believed they were being refused service. I'm saying the story says this:
[iMagovern said before he could even place his order, the man behind the counter told him “We don’t serve police officers.”
The two officers decided to leave and went and got food at Dairy Queen instead.[/i]
That says nothing about a joke or food tampering.
Figure it out, DE. Do you honestly think they believed the place had a policy of refusing police officers?
-
Figure it out, DE. Do you honestly think they believed the place had a policy of refusing police officers?
I don't know. Regardless, nothing in the story says the employee was joking or that the officers believed their food would be tampered with.
-
I don't know. Regardless, nothing in the story says the employee was joking or that the officers believed their food would be tampered with.
The employee knows he couldn't back it up even if he wanted to. So he can't say it in seriousness.
The officers know he can't back it up, too. So they know they can eat there if they really want to.
Safe to say, those are the facts.
But the officers don't want their food made in an environment where they were greeted like that, and I don't blame them.
No sense in acting like it's anything more than that.
-
what if the customer was in full-blown nazi clothing, and the employee didn't want to serve them?
We'd probably be okay with it. Right?
-
The employee knows he couldn't back it up even if he wanted to. So he can't say it in seriousness.
The officers know he can't back it up, too. So they know they can eat there if they really want to.
Safe to say, those are the facts.
But the officers don't want their food made in an environment where they were greeted like that, and I don't blame them.
No sense in acting like it's anything more than that.
You are making assumptions, which is fine. I just thought there was more to the story.
-
Funny thing is, the kid's probably like 15 or something.
-
You are making assumptions, which is fine. I just thought there was more to the story.
Doesn't that mean you're the one making assumptions?
-
I didn't read anything about the employee joking or the officers being concerned about their food being tampered with?
He is referring to the link I posted
"Davenport has said the controversy stemmed from a misunderstanding, and Maribal's comment was an attempt at a joke."
"Sgt. Martin finally received her food, but said she was too uncomfortable to eat it, so she returned it and got a refund. "
-
Funny thing is, the kid's probably like 15 or something.
50, but with the low IQ to be expected of a Hebrew fast food worker. #BLM
https://www.gofundme.com/gy4bx73k
-
He is referring to the link I posted
"Davenport has said the controversy stemmed from a misunderstanding, and Maribal's comment was an attempt at a joke."
"Sgt. Martin finally received her food, but said she was too uncomfortable to eat it, so she returned it and got a refund. "
I haven't yet read that one, but there's pretty much a single explanation for all these type stories. Nothing else fits, generally.
-
50, but with the low IQ to be expected of a Hebrew fast food worker. #BLM
https://www.gofundme.com/gy4bx73k
He should have considered the possibility of this happening. Let's hope he learned something (along with the crybaby cops).
-
Doesn't that mean you're the one making assumptions?
I am assuming that what I read means exactly what it says.
-
He is referring to the link I posted
"Davenport has said the controversy stemmed from a misunderstanding, and Maribal's comment was an attempt at a joke."
"Sgt. Martin finally received her food, but said she was too uncomfortable to eat it, so she returned it and got a refund. "
Ok. That explains it. Thanks.
Las Vegas/Jack T. Cross: you were referring to the wrong article.
-
Ok. That explains it. Thanks.
No, the story itself explains it to anyone who cares enough to THINK for more than the 20-seconds or so it takes to copy and paste it.
Las Vegas/Jack T. Cross: you were referring to the wrong article.
Close, but no cigar.
-
Good. Find someplace else to work. And don't ever call 911 asking for help.
::) There are plenty of restaurants. They should have just gone to another one and not acted like pansies.
-
::) There are plenty of restaurants. They should have just gone to another one and not acted like pansies.
I don't know.... what if the place was being robbed and when they called the police they were told "There are plenty of robberies, we are at another one so stop acting like pansies."
-
They should have quietly explained to the manager that the store comedian needs new material, before leaving to eat somewhere else.
-
::) There are plenty of restaurants. They should have just gone to another one and not acted like pansies.
::) Or maybe they should have went and filed a discrimination complaint.
-
No, the story itself explains it to anyone who cares enough to THINK for more than the 20-seconds or so it takes to copy and paste it.
Close, but no cigar.
You were referring to the wrong story.
-
You were referring to the wrong story.
I explained my take in an earlier post in this thread. The realistic possibilities are very limited in a situation like this, and you know it.
-
I explained my take in an earlier post in this thread. The realistic possibilities are very limited in a situation like this, and you know it.
You read an article that Lurker posted and made assumptions that the same set of facts took place in the article I posted.
-
How is this any different than the woman who wanted her hair cut?
It's discriminatory against police, but that's ok right?
Yes, the restaurant is wrong, and of course they should be fined and the employee fired. But I thought the conservatives were ok with this discrimination.
-
You read an article that Lurker posted and made assumptions that the same set of facts took place in the article I posted.
No, because my imagination isn't so great as to come up with a "poor cops" angle on such a ridiculously simple article.
-
::) Or maybe they should have went and filed a discrimination complaint.
They probably would have if they could have. They certainly ran to the media as fast as they could.
-
No, because my imagination isn't so great as to come up with a "poor cops" angle on such a ridiculously simple article.
Dude. Go back and read the thread. Your comments about the employee joking and the cops being afraid of food tampering came straight from the article Lurker posted.
-
They probably would have if they could have. They certainly ran to the media as fast as they could.
Nothing prevented them from filing a complaint.
-
They probably would have if they could have. They certainly ran to the media as fast as they could.
They should have.
That is in fact, discrimination. Now whether or not it is protected by a law, I do not know, but it's certainly discriminatory in practice.
-
Dude. Go back and read the thread. Your comments about the employee joking and the cops being afraid of food tampering came straight from the article Lurker posted.
OK, please give me some alternative scenario.
-
Nothing prevented them from filing a complaint.
They had no legal basis to file a discriminatory complaint. So they did the next best thing: went to the media. What a bunch of pansies. ::)
-
OK, please give me some alternative scenario.
No. I'm accepting what I read at face value. I'll let you run with the assumptions you have made.
-
They had no legal basis to file a discriminatory complaint. So they did the next best thing: went to the media. What a bunch of pansies. ::)
Having "no legal basis to file a discriminatory complaint" doesn't stop people from filing discrimination complaints. Happens all the time. ::)
-
No. I'm accepting what I read at face value. I'll let you run with the assumptions you have made.
What is that value? Can you explain it?
-
What is that value? Can you explain it?
Read the story.
-
Having "no legal basis to file a discriminatory complaint" doesn't stop people from filing discrimination complaints.
No, it doesn't. These cops literally weren't refused service. They literally wouldn't have had anything to complain about other than being "uncomfortable".
Besides, why would they waste time with a bogus discriminatory complaint when they can create 10x as much drama with a media circus? ::)
-
No, it doesn't. These cops literally weren't refused service. They literally wouldn't have had anything to complain about other than being "uncomfortable".
Besides, why would they waste time with a bogus discriminatory complaint when they can create 10x as much drama with a media circus? ::)
Yes it does. People file stupid, baseless complaints all the time. And yes, they were refused service when the employee told them they don't serve cops.
-
Yes it does. People file stupid, baseless complaints all the time. And yes, they were refused service when the employee told them they don't serve cops.
Are you saying it would be stupid and baseless?
-
Are you saying it would be stupid and baseless?
Yep.
-
Yep.
Why?
:P
-
The employee should have known better than to think it was an appropriate comment.
-
Why?
:P
Because. :D
-
Yes it does. People file stupid, baseless complaints all the time. And yes, they were refused service when the employee told them they don't serve cops.
They weren't refused service if they paid for food, received food and then returned said food for a cash refund. That isn't being refused service. That's like saying they were refused service if there was any wait time required to prepare their food.
And, no, people do not file complaints all the time for things that they admit did not happen.
-
Because. :D
;D ;D ;D
In all seriousness, maybe he was looking for a reason to start that funding page. It wouldn't surprise me at all.
-
They weren't refused service if they paid for food, received and then returned it for a cash refund. That isn't being refused service. That's like saying they were refused service if there was any wait time required to prepare their food.
And, no, people do not file complaints all the time for things that they admit did not happen.
lol. Uh, yeah, they do. Unfortunately, people invent and contort facts all the time.
-
;D ;D ;D
In all seriousness, maybe he was looking for a reason to start that funding page. It wouldn't surprise me at all.
I'm not actually disagreeing with any of your assumptions.
-
lol. Uh, yeah, they do. Unfortunately, people invent and contort facts all the time.
::) Yes, inventing and contorting facts ie lying. Like I said, people don't file complaints over events that they admit didn't happen. According to their own version of events, they weren't denied service.
The first thing they did was run to the media. If they had the option, they would have filed a discrimination complaint.
-
I'm not actually disagreeing with any of your assumptions.
I think both sides maybe had an agenda. But it seems the media wants everyone to grab one side or the other and hold on for dear life.
-
But if the guy hadn't made the dumb and unfunny comment, the opportunity wouldn't have come up for the cops to do their part.
That's the bottom line.
-
personally, I'd smack the shithead working at arbys or whatever.
but it's interesting...
if a customer is wearing a prostitute outfit, can the place deny her?
if the customer is wearing a nazi shit, can the place deny her?
if the customer is wearing an anti-obama shirt, can the place deny her?
at some point, a restaurant really has the right to refuse anyone, even if the people working are being classless dicks. I'm glad whataburger (whatever that is) fired this idiot, and I'm glad arbys fired the pembroke kid, but if a self-owned restaurant didn't want to serve someone in a hitler shirt, don't they have that right -legally??
-
personally, I'd smack the shithead working at arbys or whatever.
but it's interesting...
if a customer is wearing a prostitute outfit, can the place deny her?
if the customer is wearing a nazi shit, can the place deny her?
if the customer is wearing an anti-obama shirt, can the place deny her?
at some point, a restaurant really has the right to refuse anyone, even if the people working are being classless dicks. I'm glad whataburger (whatever that is) fired this idiot, and I'm glad arbys fired the pembroke kid, but if a self-owned restaurant didn't want to serve someone in a hitler shirt, don't they have that right -legally??
Are you asking whether a place can enforce a dress code?
-
Another chapter in the "war on cops"... ::)
Cop asked to use restroom at Starbucks. They tell him he is not a paying customer so he posts this rant on Facebook:
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/09/17/14/2C6BFC2B00000578-3238433-image-a-2_1442496282669.jpg)
Starbucks apologized. Do they let anyone use their restroom or only paying customers?
Btw, how did he know the employee was a liberal?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3238433/Starbucks-apologizes-police-officer-refused-restroom-access-wasn-t-paying-customer.html
-
Another chapter in the "war on cops"... ::)
Cop asked to use restroom at Starbucks. They tell him he is not a paying customer so he posts this rant on Facebook:
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/09/17/14/2C6BFC2B00000578-3238433-image-a-2_1442496282669.jpg)
Starbucks apologized. Do they let anyone use their restroom or only paying customers?
Btw, how did he know the employee was a liberal?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3238433/Starbucks-apologizes-police-officer-refused-restroom-access-wasn-t-paying-customer.html
How fucking DARE you question him?
-
cop sounds like an idiot. Calling her a liberal? lots of conservatives hate cops too.
and do you let all public employees take a crap 3x a day for free in your restroom? I've worked retail. Those cops come in, sit down, and play on their phones for 20 minutes while dropping a deuce. impossible for other patrons to get in there.
-
::) Yes, inventing and contorting facts ie lying. Like I said, people don't file complaints over events that they admit didn't happen. According to their own version of events, they weren't denied service.
The first thing they did was run to the media. If they had the option, they would have filed a discrimination complaint.
What version are you reading?
Whataburger fires employee for refusing to serve police officers
Published September 16, 2015
FoxNews.com
A Texas Whataburger employee was fired Wednesday for refusing to serve two police officers in what the company is describing as an appalling incident.
Officers Michael Magovern and Cameron Beckham were working off-duty security at a construction site on I-35 early Wednesday morning when they decided to stop at the restaurant in Lewisville, FOX 26 reports.
Magovern said before he could even place his order, the man behind the counter told him “We don’t serve police officers.”
The two officers decided to leave and went and got food at Dairy Queen instead.
"We were appalled to hear of an employee refusing service to two officers, as we have proudly served first responders across our system for decades,” Whataburger said in a statement Wednesday. “As soon as we heard of this isolated incident, we began our own internal investigation overnight. The employee that refused service is no longer employed with Whataburger. We've also invited the officers back today so we can apologize in person and make this right."
Magovern told Fox 26 that in “17 years as a firefighter and now 13 years as a police officer this is the first time this has ever happened to me.”
Click for more from Fox 26.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/09/16/whataburger-fires-employee-for-refusing-to-serve-police-officers/?intcmp=hplnws
-
What version are you reading?
[Oops!] at me. Was reading a link that was posted below that. Didn't realize they were two different events.
Doesn't really change the fact that the cops ran to the media as quickly as they could. Like you said previously, filing complaints doesn't accomplish anything. You can create so much more drama running to the media.
Are these guys pansies? Is it pansier to file a discrimination complaint or to run to the media? I would think the latter.
-
[Oops!] at me. Was reading a link that was posted below that. Didn't realize they were two different events.
Doesn't really change the fact that the cops ran to the media as quickly as they could. Like you said previously, filing complaints doesn't accomplish anything. You can create so much more drama running to the media.
Are these guys pansies? Is it pansier to file a discrimination complaint or to run to the media? I would think the latter.
No worries. I think running to the media (if that's what they did) is pretty dumb, but I wouldn't call them pansies. I definitely would if they filed a complaint.
Overall, though, I don't think this story is the same as the barbershop story.
No comments about the actual story itself? What that employee did doesn't bother you?
-
No worries. I think running to the media (if that's what they did) is pretty dumb, but I wouldn't call them pansies. I definitely would if they filed a complaint.
They were interviewed by the local media because they publicized the incident, so it's pretty obvious that they did run to the media.
LOL you're entitled to your personal scale of "pansiness", but there was no ostensible difference between the reasons the cops went to the media and the reasons the woman filed a complaint. They felt they were wronged by businesses and wanted some sort of satisfaction. Obviously, a news story about a corporate restaurant having an anti-cop policy is going to get a lot of traction. It's not like it's something that would have less impact than filing a complaint or takes less effort, so I don't get the argument one is somehow more ridiculous than the other. If anything, filing a complaint is the reasonable and responsible thing to do.
Overall, though, I don't think this story is the same as the barbershop story.
No comments about the actual story itself? What that employee did doesn't bother you?
The stories have differences, but the key points are pretty similar.
I've already stated that I'm not a supporter of discrimination or bad customer service, so what I think of the employee's behavior should be pretty obvious- if the story is taken at face value. It's not that far-fetched to believe that the guy was joking. The barber in the previous story never made the argument.
-
They were interviewed by the local media because they publicized the incident, so it's pretty obvious that they did run to the media.
LOL you're entitled to your personal scale of "pansiness", but there was no ostensible difference between the reasons the cops went to the media and the reasons the woman filed a complaint. They felt they were wronged by businesses and wanted some sort of satisfaction. Obviously, a news story about a corporate restaurant having an anti-cop policy is going to get a lot of traction. It's not like it's something that would have less impact than filing a complaint or takes less effort, so I don't get the argument one is somehow more ridiculous than the other. If anything, filing a complaint is the reasonable and responsible thing to do.
The stories have differences, but the key points are pretty similar.
I've already stated that I'm not a supporter of discrimination or bad customer service, so what I think of the employee's behavior should be pretty obvious- if the story is taken at face value. It's not that far-fetched to believe that the guy was joking. The barber in the previous story never made the argument.
Pansy scale? I like it. ;D
I think the cops should have reported it to management, which they apparently did, and left it at that. The employee was fired. The restaurant apologized and said the conduct was not acceptable. No need to put them on blast when it was the apparent isolated conduct of one knucklehead.
If this is a trend, however, then maybe it's worth letting other cops know.
-
Cops should probably bring their own lunches to work. I would, for sure.
-
Cops should probably bring their own lunches to work. I would, for sure.
Ronnie did so they have no excuse.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vc0GBZZjNpg/VDSsRUnjyUI/AAAAAAAAZPo/wAGu-8uLB04/s1600/Ronnie%2BColeman%2Bpoliceman%2Bbodybuilder.jpg)
-
Ronnie did so they have no excuse.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vc0GBZZjNpg/VDSsRUnjyUI/AAAAAAAAZPo/wAGu-8uLB04/s1600/Ronnie%2BColeman%2Bpoliceman%2Bbodybuilder.jpg)
K-C MASTAPIECE!!! I saw that video. Mr. Steroid plays cop.
-
I would bring lunch, so no need to worry about a side-order of snot. The people REALLY out to get you, aren't going to announce themselves with dumb jokes.
-
Pansy scale? I like it. ;D
I think the cops should have reported it to management, which they apparently did, and left it at that. The employee was fired. The restaurant apologized and said the conduct was not acceptable. No need to put them on blast when it was the apparent isolated conduct of one knucklehead.
If this is a trend, however, then maybe it's worth letting other cops know.
So, what is the difference between filing a report with management and filing a discriminatory claim? ::) The purpose of both is to punish either the business or the employee. There's not a difference. The cases are pretty similar ( if anything the restaurant acted in a less discriminatory fashion than the barbershop) and the way the customers reacted was similar (if anything, the woman acted less dramatically than the police officers) . You're using nonsensical circular logic to explain away differences that don't exist.
-
So, what is the difference between filing a report with management and filing a discriminatory claim? ::) The purpose of both is to punish either the business or the employee. There's not a difference. The cases are pretty similar ( if anything the restaurant acted in a less discriminatory fashion than the barbershop) and the way the customers reacted was similar (if anything, the woman acted less dramatically than the police officers) . You're using nonsensical circular logic to explain away differences that don't exist.
Talk about nonsensical logic. ::)
First of all, you don't have to "file" a report with management. You just need to complain, which can be a simple phone call. That's probably what happened here. At most, it's probably an email or a short letter. If you don't understand the difference between that and going to someplace like the EEOC and filing a formal complaint, then I cannot help you. Maybe you should Google what's involved with filing that kind of complaint so you have a better understanding of what's involved.
Second, when someone files a complaint, they are often asking for money or some other kind of compensation/remedy. Complaining to management about denial of service isn't asking for money. The person complaining (in this case the officers) would likely just get a free meal. Night and day difference.
-
Talk about nonsensical logic. ::)
First of all, you don't have to "file" a report with management. You just need to complain, which can be a simple phone call. That's probably what happened here. At most, it's probably an email or a short letter. If you don't understand the difference between that and going to someplace like the EEOC and filing a formal complaint, then I cannot help you. Maybe you should Google what's involved with filing that kind of complaint so you have a better understanding of what's involved.
Second, when someone files a complaint, they are often asking for money or some other kind of compensation/remedy. Complaining to management about denial of service isn't asking for money. The person complaining (in this case the officers) would likely just get a free meal. Night and day difference.
Emails and letters are considered written and formal.
If you send an email or letter complaint to management or HR, that is considered a formal complaint.
I'm sure you know that though.
-
Talk about nonsensical logic. ::)
First of all, you don't have to "file" a report with management. You just need to complain, which can be a simple phone call. That's probably what happened here. At most, it's probably an email or a short letter. If you don't understand the difference between that and going to someplace like the EEOC and filing a formal complaint, then I cannot help you. Maybe you should Google what's involved with filing that kind of complaint so you have a better understanding of what's involved.
Second, when someone files a complaint, they are often asking for money or some other kind of compensation/remedy. Complaining to management about denial of service isn't asking for money. The person complaining (in this case the officers) would likely just get a free meal. Night and day difference.
The woman in that story filed a complaint with the state licensing board, not the eeoc. You can file a complaint on the board's website and it requires the same amount of information as the McDonald's restaurant feedback page. Right on the licensing board's website it says that it is not a court of law and financial restitution can only be made through a civil action. The most a complaint could garner is a fine, which a) wouldn't have gone to her and b) is on par with firing an employee.
-
Emails and letters are considered written and formal.
If you send an email or letter complaint to management or HR, that is considered a formal complaint.
I'm sure you know that though.
By formal complaint I mean something filed with a court or administrative agency. A "complaint" submitted to management is something handled internally by the company.
-
The woman in that story filed a complaint with the state licensing board, not the eeoc. You can file a complaint on the board's website and it requires the same amount of information as the McDonald's restaurant feedback page. Right on the licensing board's website it says that it is not a court of law and financial restitution can only be made through a civil action. The most a complaint could garner is a fine, which a) wouldn't have gone to her and b) is on par with firing an employee.
I was using the EEOC as an example. I am talking about any court or administrative agency, which would include a state licensing board.
I haven't looked at the state licensing board website (it's not that important), but if you say her only remedy is a fine, then I'll accept that.
-
I was using the EEOC as an example. I am talking about any court or administrative agency, which would include a state licensing board.
I haven't looked at the state licensing board website (it's not that important), but if you say her only remedy is a fine, then I'll accept that.
I am not using a random example. I'm telling you exactly what happened. And what you said doesn't apply to the specific licensing board that was involved in that story.
-
I am not using a random example. I'm telling you exactly what happened. And what you said doesn't apply to the specific licensing board that was involved in that story.
You asked me a general question about the difference between complaining to management and filing a discrimination claim.
-
By formal complaint I mean something filed with a court or administrative agency. A "complaint" submitted to management is something handled internally by the company.
When your company is "government", I would dare say that they are very close to the same thing.
-
Man, if that 50 year-old fella was legitimately joking, this kinda sucks. I can see f'n around like that - but then the cops quickly drive away ... "Hey! I was messing around, guys! Come baaaaack!" Effed up.
Assuming he's telling the truth, of course.
-
You asked me a general question about the difference between complaining to management and filing a discrimination claim.
??? Following a discussion of two specific examples.
Even if that wasn't the case, that explanation didn't make sense. Customers don't file complaints with the EEOC, employees do. Outside of civil litigation, none of the agencies that a customer would file a complaint with are entitled to dispense monetary damages.
Man, if that 50 year-old fella was legitimately joking, this kinda sucks. I can see f'n around like that - but then the cops quickly drive away ... "Hey! I was messing around, guys! Come baaaaack!" Effed up.
Assuming he's telling the truth, of course.
Yeah, I'm being facetious about the cops' reactions, but it looks like it's not exactly what they claimed. There were witnesses who spoke to the media that said it seemed pretty obvious the guy was joking and the officers came back in about a minute after they left and the guy told them he was joking.
-
without audio and video we'll probably never know. Seems to me, if someone says something to me like "Take my wife to jail, she stole my happiness" I can conclude it's a joke. Or , "I didn't do it officer", another common joke. In my decades of policing I've never come across an employee at a business that said "we don't serve cops". I would imagine IF that were to happen, the person would immediately feel compelled to demonstrate it was a joke either by laughing and saying "Just messing with ya" or some other sign they weren't serious. In this current environment I wouldn't find it too hard to believe someone would be anti cop enough to make that statement. Then later it was down played as a joke. In other words, I think It would have been pretty clear to the cop at the time if it was a joke or not. If it has to be explained later.. then it probably wasn't.
-
without audio and video we'll probably never know. Seems to me, if someone says something to me like "Take my wife to jail, she stole my happiness" I can conclude it's a joke. Or , "I didn't do it officer", another common joke. In my decades of policing I've never come across an employee at a business that said "we don't serve cops". I would imagine IF that were to happen, the person would immediately feel compelled to demonstrate it was a joke either by laughing and saying "Just messing with ya" or some other sign they weren't serious. In this current environment I wouldn't find it too hard to believe someone would be anti cop enough to make that statement. Then later it was down played as a joke. In other words, I think It would have been pretty clear to the cop at the time if it was a joke or not. If it has to be explained later.. then it probably wasn't.
Or maybe the employee did mean it as a joke and could possibly have elaborated immediately "Just messing with ya" but the cop chose, for his/her own reasons, to distort the facts. As you said, without audio, video and perhaps some more witnesses we can't know for sure.
-
Or maybe the employee did mean it as a joke and could possibly have elaborated immediately "Just messing with ya" but the cop chose, for his/her own reasons, to distort the facts. As you said, without audio, video and perhaps some more witnesses we can't know for sure.
That's possible too but asking myself which is more likely... I'd say that is less likely, though possible.
-
That's possible too but asking myself which is more likely... I'd say that is less likely, though possible.
Since it's relevant to the article, what is your opinion about cops doing off-duty security work while on uniform? Some police departments allow this, some don't. I think it's wrong to wear the uniform while off-duty and working for a private company/person.
-
Since it's relevant to the article, what is your opinion about cops doing off-duty security work while on uniform? Some police departments allow this, some don't. I think it's wrong to wear the uniform while off-duty and working for a private company/person.
I don't have a problem with it as long as their are stipulations. For example, you cannot enforce house rules. You are only there to enforce city and state laws. You are limited in how much you can work so as not to impact your performance at your primary job. The business goes through a vetting process to include providing adequate insurance. Most places that hire cops do so because they have had issues in the past. So on duty officers have to respond to the disturbances and it takes away from other duties. Secondary employment reduces the calls for service to on duty by providing on site deterrent. The business that is creating the need for police response it therefore paying for police verses tax payers.
-
When your company is "government", I would dare say that they are very close to the same thing.
Not really. An employer is an employer, whether in the private or public sector.
-
??? Following a discussion of two specific examples.
Even if that wasn't the case, that explanation didn't make sense. Customers don't file complaints with the EEOC, employees do. Outside of civil litigation, none of the agencies that a customer would file a complaint with are entitled to dispense monetary damages.
Responding to a general comment made in a discussion about one specific example. I never really commented on the second example.
As I said, I was using the EEOC as an example of an administrative agency.
What happens when a restaurant denies service to a Muslim, solely because he is a Muslim? Where would the customer go to file a complaint?
-
Not really. An employer is an employer, whether in the private or public sector.
You and I know that all "employers" are not created equal.
-
You and I know that all "employers" are not created equal.
Of course not. But that doesn't make an internal complaint procedure any different. There is essentially no difference between a "complaint" submitted to a public or private employer.
Or maybe I don't understand whatever point you're trying to make?
-
without audio and video we'll probably never know. Seems to me, if someone says something to me like "Take my wife to jail, she stole my happiness" I can conclude it's a joke. Or , "I didn't do it officer", another common joke. In my decades of policing I've never come across an employee at a business that said "we don't serve cops". I would imagine IF that were to happen, the person would immediately feel compelled to demonstrate it was a joke either by laughing and saying "Just messing with ya" or some other sign they weren't serious. In this current environment I wouldn't find it too hard to believe someone would be anti cop enough to make that statement. Then later it was down played as a joke. In other words, I think It would have been pretty clear to the cop at the time if it was a joke or not. If it has to be explained later.. then it probably wasn't.
Yeah, only going on the assumption they heard him and immediately bolted. Which itself seems far-fetched.
-
Of course not. But that doesn't make an internal complaint procedure any different. There is essentially no difference between a "complaint" submitted to a public or private employer.
Or maybe I don't understand whatever point you're trying to make?
You rarely do, or you do and you just ignore it.
-
You rarely do, or you do and you just ignore it.
Thanks for the clarification.
-
Responding to a general comment made in a discussion about one specific example. I never really commented on the second example.
??? You responded to several of my posts about both examples and acknowledged both examples. You said this, shortly before what you are describing as a general comment:
Overall, though, I don't think this story is the same as the barbershop story.
Clearly, the two examples were being discussed in tandem.
As I said, I was using the EEOC as an example of an administrative agency.
What happens when a restaurant denies service to a Muslim, solely because he is a Muslim? Where would the customer go to file a complaint?
And it's not an accurate example to use. It wasn't used in the specific case we were discussing and wouldn't be used in the cop case or any similar cases. Short of lawsuits, I think most complaints like this would be handled by local licensing agencies and only levy fines.
-
??? You responded to several of my posts about both examples and acknowledged both examples. You said this, shortly before what you are describing as a general comment:
Overall, though, I don't think this story is the same as the barbershop story.
Clearly, the two examples were being discussed in tandem.
And it's not an accurate example to use. It wasn't used in the specific case we were discussing and wouldn't be used in the cop case or any similar cases. Short of lawsuits, I think most complaints like this would be handled by local licensing agencies and only levy fines.
By second example I was referring to the second story in this thread posted by Lurker.
So you're not aware that a Muslim who is denied service by a restaurant solely because he is Muslim could file a complaint in a federal or state agency and get monetary compensation?
-
Dunkin' Donuts Worker to Officer: 'We Don't Serve Cops Here'
Oct 05, 2015 // 11:02am
As seen on Fox and Friends
A Connecticut Dunkin’ Donuts quickly apologized to a local police officer who was told he would not be served at the location.
The store's manager said his employee was just joking when she reportedly said, “He didn’t get the message. We don’t serve cops here," in front of other customers.
The comment prompted the West Hartford police officer, who’d been waiting in line, to walk out in disgust.
As he headed for his car, the manager brought the employee over to apologize, and the worker explained the comment was made in jest.
As part of the apology, the worker reportedly offered a free cup of coffee.
But the officer would have none of it and said he’d take his business elsewhere.
Dunkin’ Brands Group said that that the crew member showed poor judgment and that Dunkin’ franchises are committed to fair treatment of their customers.
The incident comes after employees at Arby’s and Whataburger refused service to police officers in separate episodes in September.
Arby's Fires Manager, Suspends Clerk After Alleged Refusal to Serve Cop
Taco Bell Worker Writes 'Pig' on Cop's Order
Whataburger Employee Fired for Refusing Service to Texas Cops
http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/10/05/dunkin-donuts-worker-officer-we-dont-serve-cops
-
A donut shop not serving cops? They'd lose all their customers.
-
Dunkin' Donuts Worker to Officer: 'We Don't Serve Cops Here'
Oct 05, 2015 // 11:02am
As seen on Fox and Friends
A Connecticut Dunkin’ Donuts quickly apologized to a local police officer who was told he would not be served at the location.
The store's manager said his employee was just joking when she reportedly said, “He didn’t get the message. We don’t serve cops here," in front of other customers.
The comment prompted the West Hartford police officer, who’d been waiting in line, to walk out in disgust.
As he headed for his car, the manager brought the employee over to apologize, and the worker explained the comment was made in jest.
As part of the apology, the worker reportedly offered a free cup of coffee.
But the officer would have none of it and said he’d take his business elsewhere.
Dunkin’ Brands Group said that that the crew member showed poor judgment and that Dunkin’ franchises are committed to fair treatment of their customers.
The incident comes after employees at Arby’s and Whataburger refused service to police officers in separate episodes in September.
Arby's Fires Manager, Suspends Clerk After Alleged Refusal to Serve Cop
Taco Bell Worker Writes 'Pig' on Cop's Order
Whataburger Employee Fired for Refusing Service to Texas Cops
http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/10/05/dunkin-donuts-worker-officer-we-dont-serve-cops
I'm pretty good at detecting humor vs insult. My passive aggressive radar is pretty accurate as well. Had this been me, I'm pretty sure I would be able to immediately detect if the employee was joking or serious. Lot of clues go with the words to help figure that out. If I determined it was passive aggressive or the employees obvious sentiment I would have left as well. When flagged down in the parking lot by the manager with the employee, I would have thanked the manager for his actions and told the employee thank you but no thank you to the coffee. I would have left at that point. I would have probably shared the story with my buddies because we do have to be aware of anti cop food places for health reasons if you get my drift.. and that would be the end of it. No way would it have gotten into the news.