Starbucks ordered to pay customer €12,000 because of drawing on cup

Gradius

Gradius wrote: »

12 grand is ludicrous. For what? A fleeting moment of offence, whether intended or not?

The message this sends is fast and clear: there's money to be made out of this.

Some chancer, or someone genuinely down on their luck, the opportunity presents itself, looks good and you'll bet a ton of people would hop on it.

Like that supermacs thing where the owner insisted on fighting the courts for compo stuff, even putting cameras in the toilets to catch "accidents".

But how do you safeguard yourself against someone elses perceived "feelings"? Always be hyper aware of certain people and how they might interpret anything and everything you do as a negative, walk on eggshells?

Seriously stupid message to put out there, and if it was genuine then the courts should have taken much more off Starbucks and the money gone straight to something like Irish homeless people.

12 grand for a pinched feeling, fook sake. Nice decent car there, nice lump off a mortgage, many lovely holidays abroad, a decent education course, all for 60 seconds effort? Sign me up

I suspect Starbucks didn't have any diversity training, if they did, our Brazilian friend attended, and still committed such a egregious act, the payout might be less.

Still. Theres an idea. If your buddy works in Starbucks, there's handy cash to be made.

Your one was wronged, to the value of €600 I reckon.

Donald Trump

12k is a nice incentive to be on the lookout for something to potentially take offence from. Load of bollix. Everyone else has to pay for that indirectly.

Did yer wan even have "slanty eyes" to take offence for? Serious question. If I was in the US and ordered something and the person drew a face with red hair and freckles I'd just think they were retarded given that I have neither. If I had, maybe I might get annoyed - but I wouldn't be nearly as annoyed as I would be with the unfairness of life overall for having made me a ginger in the first place. I don't think I'd be envisioning dollar signs though. I might launch it back across the counter at them if I was sure it wasn't a misunderstanding.

dazberry

I was sort of struggling to understand what the WRC has to do with this at all, I didn't think any of that would be in their remit given she wasn't an employee???

The overall objective of the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) is to deliver a world-class workplace relations service and employment rights framework for employers and employees.

But ...

The Equal Status Acts 2000–2015, which prohibit discrimination outside the workplace, in particular in the provision of goods and services; in selling, renting or leasing property (including the "housing assistance ground") and in certain aspects of education.

seems they get in on a technicality. Well the lady wasn't refused service, and IMO wasn't discriminated against in provision of a service and while her grievance may be legitimate I can't see the WRC being the correct vehicle for this at all. So this seems like some legal bolloxology IMO. But the devil is always in the details I guess.

Having seen people getting totally screwed by employers - the WRC isn't near as generous, and using words like order or judgement are a bit misleading - you can take their recommendation but still have to go to court. So all in all I find all this really strange.

Quantum Erasure

sporina wrote: »

no.. people commenting and then asking Q's about the story - showing that they haven't even read it, but still have an opinion

People can question the judgment, question the amount awarded, question any aspect of the story, and have an opinion on it, as is thier right. Doesn't mean they haven't read the story

pgj2015

starbucks should have denied it ever happened, prove we did it. no our employee didnt draw that, you did.

46 Long

The eyes are referred to in the evidence as ‘slanty’ eyes. The complainant asserts that this was offensive to her because of the racial connotation and her Thai-Irish heritage. The respondent asserts that this was not motivated by racism and it apologised for the incident. It asserts that the complainant’s boyfriend used a racial slur during the incident, calling the employee a ‘f****** Black c***’

Methinks the lady doth protest too much

https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2021/january/adj-00028487.html

Pythagorean

I have a beard; if Starbucks handed me a cup of coffee with a beardy face on it could I wangle 12000 euros out of them ??

nullzero

Pythagorean wrote: »

I have a beard; if Starbucks handed me a cup of coffee with a beardy face on it could I wangle 12000 euros out of them ??

Only if you're a woman with a beard.

Donald Trump

46 Long wrote: »

Methinks the lady doth protest too much

https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2021/january/adj-00028487.html

The boyfriends grandmother sent an email complaining

nullzero

Donald Trump wrote: »

The boyfriends grandmother sent an email complaining

The boyfriend supposedly referred to the staff member who drew the image as a "black cvnt", something that his girlfriend said she didn't witness.

Overheal

Pythagorean wrote: »

I have a beard; if Starbucks handed me a cup of coffee with a beardy face on it could I wangle 12000 euros out of them ??

Isn't hairstyle a choice?

sporina

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

People can question the judgment, question the amount awarded, question any aspect of the story, and have an opinion on it, as is thier right. Doesn't mean they haven't read the story

oh dear.. lol... never mind..

Donald Trump

nullzero wrote: »

The boyfriend supposedly referred to the staff member who drew the image as a "black cvnt", something that his girlfriend said she didn't witness.

I read that as well but I was focusing on the granny point.



What (presumably 20-something year old) fella gets his granny to fight his girlfriend's battles via email?




Will he be rolling out the big guns and getting the granny to sign up for boards.ie next to stick up for his missus if he doesn't like what is on here?

Donald Trump

Overheal wrote: »

Isn't hairstyle a choice?

Could be a religious thing.

Gradius

Overheal wrote: »

Isn't hairstyle a choice?

Isn't finding offence a choice? Hence the having-to-find-it part?

nullzero

Donald Trump wrote: »

I read that as well but I was focusing on the granny point.



What (presumably 20-something year old) fella gets his granny to fight his girlfriend's battles via email?




Will he be rolling out the big guns and getting the granny to sign up for boards.ie next to stick up for his missus if he doesn't like what is on here?

The hypocrisy of calling that woman a "black cvnt" then taking a case against her employer for her supposed racist conduct is incredible.

I wonder what the usual suspects who defend this type of thing on this site will make of it?

Quantum Erasure

sporina wrote: »

oh dear.. lol... never mind..

lol, don't worry about it, you're grand

46 Long

Donald Trump wrote: »

The boyfriends grandmother sent an email complaining

Granny was the only one in the family smart enough to see the payday that had just dropped in their laps. Boyfriend was an out and out racist and the complainant wasn't remotely bothered by the incident for all her claims of 'racial abuse'.

The respondent played CCTV footage of the incident of the 12th January 2020. This shows the complainant at the counter, ordering a beverage. It depicts the respondent employee taking a cup and writing on it. The complainant then paid for this item and a water with her phone. The employee then marks the cup and shows the complainant, who smiles and laughs.

walshb

46 Long wrote: »

Methinks the lady doth protest too much

https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2021/january/adj-00028487.html

What a load of tosh

If someone can wave a wand through this and award 12 k for I am not even sure what, then surely the boyfriend is due to be quizzed and interrogated for his alleged racial slur, that more than one person seems to say happened.

Who are these virtue signalling ego trippers in WRC?

Gaoth Laidir

It seems from her evidence that she was unwilling to take it further but it was the boyfriend and his granny who did so. I know the type. Also, the complainant shares a Youtube channel with her cousin, who's into Anime in which sl*nty eyes are featured but she doesn't find that offensive. She said she would have preferred if a full body image was drawn instead of a face! Then she'd claim that her measurements were not in proportion. FFS.

For the record, here is her evidence. She claims she missed the bit where her boyfriend allegedly racially abused the barista.

The complainant outlined that on the 12th January 2020, she went to a Starbucks in Tallaght. At the counter, the employee asked for her name and the complainant gave a shortened version of her name. The employee laughed, as did the complainant, who proceeded to spell her name. The employee then said that she would draw the eyes. The complainant said ‘okay’. The employee drew a set of eyes on the cup and showed the complainant.

The complainant outlined that while she had said ‘okay’, she was shocked and nervous. She was not sure how to react. The complainant and her boyfriend laughed and then left the counter. He said that this was racist. The complainant was then too uncomfortable to collect the cup, so sat down. Her boyfriend returned to the counter to collect the cup. He showed her the drawing. The complainant was confused by the smiley face and the ‘slanty’ eyes.

They spoke about whether to make a complaint. The complainant said that she does not like confrontation. Her boyfriend approached the counter and spoke with the supervisor, who came to apologise. The supervisor offered vouchers, but the complainant did not want them. She stayed for about two minutes and this was an uncomfortable experience. She had understood that the supervisor had asked the employee to come out and apologise to her, but the employee did not come out. It felt like a long time as she was uncomfortable.

After this incident, the boyfriend’s grandmother emailed to complain about what had happened. The respondent replied to say that it was very sorry and that it would speak with those involved. The later email was very apologetic. The respondent stated that it had organised some cultural training for Brazilian staff and made an offer of vouchers.

The complainant said that she did not respond as she was not happy that the respondent had taken this seriously. She would not use vouchers. The respondent later said that this was not a racial incident, but the complainant asked why then organise cultural training? The complainant sent the ES1 form at the end of February 2020. Commenting on the CCTV, she said that this mirrored what she had explained in her letter. The complainant explained that she wanted justice and did not want this to happen to anyone else.

In cross-examination, the complainant outlined that she is Irish. She and her parents moved to Ireland from Thailand when she was five or six. She agreed that she had been served the tea she had ordered and that she was provided with a service. She was asked whether she knew that employees could draw on cups when serving customers; she replied that she had not asked for a drawing. It was put to the complainant that she had said that the employee had cut her off spelling her name; the complainant replied that this had happened quickly. The complainant had just started to spell her name when the employee said that she would draw eyes.

It was put to the complainant that from the CCTV, it looked like a pleasant encounter as both she and the employee were laughing, as had the complainant and her boyfriend on leaving the counter; she replied that this was a nervous laugh as she did not know how to react. The complainant outlined that the employee drew the eyes and showed her. The complainant said ‘yes’ and laughed, but this was her reaction as this was so unbelievable. The complainant said that this was not a normal encounter and she did not want to collect a cup with ‘slanty’ eyes.

Commenting on the CCTV footage, the complainant said that she thought her boyfriend had made a phone call to a family member, as depicted in the footage. The complainant said that while they had not directly asked for an apology, they expected the employee to come out and speak with them. It was put to the complainant that the employee was on a break at this time; she replied that they were not informed of this.

The complainant agreed that her boyfriend was unhappy with the employee. It was put to the complainant that her boyfriend had referred to the employee as a ‘f****** Black c***’ when making the complaint to management. The complainant replied that she did not witness this conversation.

The complainant was asked why the image was offensive given that it is drawn like an emoji; she replied by asking why the drawing was drawn in this way. She accepted that a full picture of her would not be offensive, i.e. an accurate picture. It was put to the complainant that this was not meant as a racial slur. It was put to the complainant that her youtube channel includes anime; she replied that she shares the account with her young cousin, and this is what the cousin watches. It was put to the complainant that she had said ‘yes’ to the drawing on the cup.

It was put to the complainant that an American band called ‘Slants’ had sought to re-appropriate the depiction of eyes in the same way that ‘queer’ had been re-appropriated by the LGBT community. She replied that she wanted her name to be marked on the cup and not a depiction of eyes as this would be called out by the employee. It was put to the complainant that it was only the type of beverage that was called out and not her name or anything else.

It was put to the complainant that the employee had thought the complainant was glamourous and did not mean any malice. It was put to the complainant that there is large population in the employee’s native Sao Paulo of Japanese heritage. It was put to the complainant that she was not treated less favourably. The complainant said that she gave permission for her boyfriend to complain because she was nervous and in shock.

riffmongous

46 Long wrote: »

Methinks the lady doth protest too much

https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2021/january/adj-00028487.html

walshb wrote: »

What a load of tosh

If someone can wave a wand through this and award 12 k for I am not even sure what, then surely the boyfriend is due to be quizzed and interrogated for his alleged racial slur, that more than one person seems to say happened.

Who are these virtue signalling ego trippers in WRC?

Should have kept reading lads

It was asserted during the hearing that the complainant’s boyfriend used a racial slur in his interactions with the supervisor on the 12th January 2020. I find that no such slur was made.

timeToLive

AMKC wrote: »

I don't get why they wrote or drew anything on her cup. Is this what they do when you buy a coffee or whatever in Starbucks and if so why? Never been in one myself as hate coffee. It's just horrible stuff.

You can also get tea, water, sandwiches, cakes, etc

Polar101

1874 wrote: »

A way ott amount, I'd be more concerned having my name down if I was a woman, as its made public and could be seized upon by creeps, cant say what the picture was but it can't have been too bad if it has been ruled to have been unintentional.

I have a name Starbucks have never managed to spell right, so I just give them a "fake" name that's much easier to spell. I don't think they really want to know my name, but if they did, then they actually don't.

Would prefer they used order numbers instead, to be honest.

pgj2015

hopefully they have no luck with the 12,000 euro.

walshb

riffmongous wrote: »

Should have kept reading lads

Whatever..

WRC chose not to believe the slur.

Anyway, whether it was said or not..The whole episode is a joke.

Nowhere near 12000 euro here for this, whatever the hell this is..

Childish fooking nonsense it reads like..

The main thing being that it really does seem that the worker did not at all set out to hurt here.. very innocuous and innocent and childish stuff/misunderstanding that has been exploited and blown way out of proportion.

World is mad!

Gaoth Laidir

BRYAN Is Ainm Dom wrote: »

Good to see you are more outraged at the compensation rather than racist behavior of ****bucks.

First reply to the OP and it got over 50 thanks so far. Just shows that people will follow the leader and not first fact-check for themselves.

God help this country.

Gaoth Laidir

walshb wrote: »

Whatever..

WRC chose not to believe the slur.

Anyway, whether it was said or not..The whole episode is a joke.

Nowhere near 12000 euro here for this, whatever the hell this is..

Childish fooking nonsense it reads like..

The main thing being that it really does seem that the worker did not at all set out to hurt here.. very innocuous and innocent and childish stuff/misunderstanding that has been exploited and blown way out of proportion.

World is mad!

It's like Cavani getting banned and fined 150K for using the term negrito on Instagram, which, in South America and the context he used it, is not considered a racial slur.

It seems that anyone can now choose to find anything at all offensive and the they'll win a pot of gold.

99nsr125

humberklog wrote: »

They write your name on the cup and then call you when it's ready, even when they're standing right beside you at the counter. But it's funny watching them try to pronounce Aloysius (that's the name I give when on the rare times I go in).

My Starbucks name is Kunta ;-)

riffmongous

walshb wrote: »

Whatever..

They chose to believe it.

Anyway, whether it was said or not..The whole episode is a joke.

Nowhere near 12000 euro here for this, whatever the hell this is..

Childish fooking nonsense it reads like..

The main thing being that it really does seem that the worker did not at all set out to hurt here.. very innocuous and innocent and childish stuff/misunderstanding that has been exploited and blown way out of proportion.

World is mad!

No one believed it, it was clearly made up well afterwards

2nd Row Donkey

Just caught the end of this particular feature on the RTE 6 O'clock news.

... One of the solicitors speaking to RTE news in the interview defending the Chinese lady was named...

Peter O'Curry (I kid you not).