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

nullzero

riffmongous wrote: »

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

How can you determine that?

Gaoth Laidir

2nd Row Donkey wrote: »

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).

She was actually Thai-Irish. Take a rap on the knuckles for that racial attack!

riffmongous

nullzero wrote: »

How can you determine that?

Same way the judge did

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.

In reaching this finding, I note the professional approach of the supervisor in handling the incident of the 12th January 2020. As depicted on the CCTV and reflected in his evidence, the supervisor was calm in dealing with the complaint and toed and froed to the table where the complainant was sitting.

While there was no audio on the CCTV, I was able to observe the comportment of the supervisor and the boyfriend during this interaction. They were calm and professional. It is said that at one point, the boyfriend used a racial slur, calling the employee a ‘f****** Black c***’ or a ‘Black c***’. One would expect the supervisor to alter his demeanour on hearing such racist language about the employee, for example to stand back as he is taken aback. After all, the supervisor no longer works for the respondent and attended the hearing as a support for the employee. I was not referred to any point in time in the CCTV footage when the slur was allegedly said, but at no point in the footage does the supervisor change his calm and business-like demeanour.

I note the absence of any contemporaneous documentary evidence regarding the racial slur. One would expect to see an incident report where there is racial abuse directed at or concerning a member of staff. There is no incident report. There is no mention of the racial slur in any of the respondent’s replies to the complainant, even though the emails refer to an investigation. Whatever about the early emails, one would certainly expect to see the allegation of a racial slur being mentioned in the ES2 reply.

I also have regard to the boyfriend’s direct evidence at the hearing. He denied making the statement but accepted that he may have mentioned the employee’s race in explaining the effect the drawing had on the complainant.

Taking these factors and inferences into account, I find that the complainant’s boyfriend did not use the words attributed to him, i.e. ‘Black c***’ or ‘f****** Black c***’.

pgj2015

it would be funny if she broke up with the boyfriend now, then all his and his granny's hard work would be for nothing.

walshb

Seems this case was more taken out of greed than any actual offence to racism..

Quantum Erasure

Polar101 wrote: »

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.

My first and last time in Starbucks, I ordered a medium latte, or whatever they call it, and was all excited giving my name, thinking 'this is cool'...

I was sitting there a while listening to them call out 'latt thinking that's a strange name, before I realised what was going on....

Bobblehats

Maaad shtuff boys this is still Ireland, right? ..2020....2021. F*ckin time warp or what frankly I’m not even certain what galaxy; let alone planet anymore but have fun with your multiracial/multinational:multicultural clusterfcuk of a scenario well into the future and beyond. Well, personally I never thought I’d have reason to look forward to death but I think me and my generation will just quietly and gladly; see ourselves out now....

if not without a few murmurs along the way. My god this place is turnin into crazy town altogether; good luck with that. And remember, this is just the beginning.....

nullzero

riffmongous wrote: »

Same way the judge did

Why did he mention the employees race at all?

Judges make poor decisions all the time. Look at how many sob stories are entertained by judges in relation to career criminals with multiple convictions hen they appear before them only to be given suspended sentences and allowed back onto our streets.

The boyfriend admits referencing the employee's race but denies it was a negative reference. And we can ascertain that to be the case because the supervisor didn't look visibly shocked on the cctv footage.

Yeah cut and dry.

riffmongous

nullzero wrote: »

Why did he mention the employees race at all?

Judges make poor decisions all the time. Look at how many sob stories are entertained by judges in relation to career criminals with multiple convictions hen they appear before them only to be given suspended sentences and allowed back onto our streets.

The boyfriend admits referencing the employee's race but denies it was a negative reference. And we can ascertain that to be the case because the supervisor didn't look visibly shocked on the cctv footage.

Yeah cut and dry.

Yeah cut and dry for anyone who isn't just desperate for it to be true. You could have just gone with "whatever"

nullzero

riffmongous wrote: »

Yeah cut and dry for anyone who isn't just desperate for it to be true. You could have just gone with "whatever"

Are you suggesting they were willing to perjure themselves for no good reason?

It seems odd the boyfriend would choose to mention the skin colour of the employee at all. Of what relevance is it?

The truth is most likely somewhere in between but I suppose that's desperation and couldn't in any way be appropriated as pragmatism.

lucernarian

Love to see what the drawing was. My first impression from the article was that the words "slanty eyes" were written, but it appears not to be the case?

Quantum Erasure

riffmongous wrote: »

Same way the judge did

From the judjment:


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. The complainant’s boyfriend looks at the cup and is seen to laugh on moving away from the counter.

Hmmmmm

riffmongous

nullzero wrote: »

Are you suggesting they were willing to perjure themselves for no good reason?

It seems odd the boyfriend would choose to mention the skin colour of the employee at all. Of what relevance is it?

The truth is most likely somewhere in between but I suppose that's desperation and couldn't in any way be appropriated as pragmatism.

His supposed slur isn't documented at any point before it went to court, there's no reaction to it in the CCTV, the defendants can't point out at which point he supposedly said this.. yep desperate

Stark

.anon. wrote: »

Sounds like the employee might have been very, very innocent and genuinely didn't understand how offensive it was.

Starbucks' defence was bizarre, to say the least:

"A legal representatives for the Starbucks outlet put it to Ms Foley 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."

That was very bizarre.

Like imagine a gay person walked in and an employee wrote "Queer" on their cup. "Oh I heard you guys had re-appropriated the term".

Vestiapx

KevRossi wrote: »

If someone in London wrote 'Paddywhacker' on your Starbucks cup, I suppose you'd laugh it off?

They were right to take them to task on it. Doesn't affect their insurance, nor yours as it's defamation, not injury. Stupid thing to do, they should pay out. As to whether it should be €12,000 or not is another point.

What do you think paddywhacker means

newmember2

Vestiapx wrote: »

What do you think paddywhacker means

you from 'round here? :pac:

nullzero

riffmongous wrote: »

His supposed slur isn't documented at any point before it went to court, there's no reaction to it in the CCTV, the defendants can't point out at which point he supposedly said this.. yep desperate

I'm guessing the lack of nous on the part of the defendants (coffee shop staff) in not being up to speed on how to record an incident of this type correctly and how that has a knock on effect in a court situation (the importance of taking down important information correctly so that it is admissible cannot be under stated).

We know the boyfriend made reference to the employee's skin colour and we have the accusation being included in what was presented to the court. I would assume the legal team representing the defendants were including it even though it hadn't been properly recorded more out of hope than expectation.

Had there been any sort of cross examination of this point the lack of clarity would have seen the point demolished, even though it may well have happened. It's one thing to say something happened, proving it under cross examination without having recorded it correctly to begin with when you have most likely never been in a court setting before is daunting and easy pickings for any barrister.

Like I said, the truth is usually somewhere in between.

You see that as desperation, I see it a rationalisation. We're not going to agree so we can park it, but if you are of a mind to continue this discussion by all means go ahead.

MrMusician18

What I'm interested in is how they determine the value of the damages payable.

Was this really worth €12k?

Gaoth Laidir

I'm going to go to Starbucks first chance I get and give them the name Tadhgh to write. If they spell it incorrectly I'm going to choose to be offended at their ignorance of Irish names and see what I van get out of them. It has to be worth five grand at least, wha?

Gaoth Laidir

MrMusician18 wrote: »

What I'm interested in is how they determine the value of the damages payable.

Was this really worth €12k?

The judge gives no detail at all on how he came to that figure. Probably used a random number-generator app

Hellotonever

Look boys, all im saying is if some english lad draws the 'subhuman irish' caricature on me starbucks cup i would instantly slam his head on the counter. See what she did was right, she spoke out.

But not all of us are snowflakes. The barista is lucky she decided to piss off a soft person that day.

lucernarian

Stark wrote: »

That was very bizarre.

Like imagine a gay person walked in and an employee wrote "Queer" on their cup. "Oh I heard you guys had re-appropriated the term".

Thing is, it's not easy to draw the word queer. I'd like to know what the drawing was on the cup tbh.

Quantum Erasure

Hellotonever wrote: »

Look boys, all im saying is if some english lad draws the 'subhuman irish' caricature on me starbucks cup i would instantly slam his head on the counter. See what she did was right, she spoke out.

But not all of us are snowflakes. The barista is lucky she decided to piss off a soft person that day.

I'd be more impressed if they did that than annoyed, tbh...

"Ireland has no issues with race, people see race everywhere nowadays".

An issue to do with race goes before the courts, the defendant doesn't even attempt to refute what happened, leading to a ruling in the plaintiff's favour...

"PFFFFFFFFFT WTF!!!!! COUNTRY IS GONE!!!!! WOKESNOWFLAKELEFTIES!!!!!!!"

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

"Ireland has no issues with race, people see race everywhere nowadays".

An issue to do with race goes before the courts, the defendant doesn't even attempt to refute what happened, leading to a ruling in the plaintiff's favour...

"PFFFFFFFFFT WTF!!!!! COUNTRY IS GONE!!!!! WOKESNOWFLAKELEFTIES!!!!!!!"

To be fair, the person racially abused was Irish, by a foreigner...

Topgear on Dave

I can see how she was offended. And these things happen occasionally, working in hotels and bars for a few years as a young fella and saw staff occasionally do stupid things dealing with the public.

If it happened to me I would have had a word with the supervisor or the manager. I would never think of dragging min wage staff to court or that it would end up in such a payday!

OMM 0000

I don't get how this is racist.

I live in Japan and Asians literally have slanty eyes.

I can understand how the drawing might be a bit annoying for her, but I don't understand how it is racist.

As an example, I've probably received Starbucks coffees here where they drew a smiley face with big eyes (to suggest the coffee is for the white guy), but I don't get how that's racist either. If anything it's kind of amusing.

I feel the meaning of racism has changed to include things like "a little bit annoying".

OMM 0000

Stark wrote: »

Like imagine a gay person walked in and an employee wrote "Queer" on their cup. "Oh I heard you guys had re-appropriated the term".

That's not a good comparison. A drawing of an Asian is not the same as calling a gay a "queer".

Perhaps a better comparison would be if they drew a rainbow flag on a gay customer's cup. Is that bigotry? I don't think so. You could argue it's annoying or stupid, but I think we need to stop lumping anything uncomfortable into the bigotry category.

ILoveYourVibes

Should be a million.

Why should I care what a billion dollar company has to pay?

What is the OP expecting from me? Sympathy for the poor racist? For the poor little rich company for whom 12k is a sneeze?

Sorry.

They should be punished more.

I feel nothing but coldness toward them.

Was I supposed to feel sorry for them? Weird.

OscarMIlde

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I'm going to go to Starbucks first chance I get and give them the name Tadhgh to write. If they spell it incorrectly I'm going to choose to be offended at their ignorance of Irish names and see what I van get out of them. It has to be worth five grand at least, wha?

I have a three letter Irish name, which I spell out, and they still get it wrong. They'll never master Tadhgh.