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

blanch152

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

It just gets better and better. Now Starbucks was ordered to pay a customer of Thai origin €12,000 because they drew "slanty eyes" on her cup instead of writing her name. She was offended.

Ok, they should have written her name but really? €12,000 for that? More compo culture Ireland at play.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0119/1190689-starbucks-ordered-to-pay-compensation/

I wouldn't class this one as compensation culture.

Compensation awards should have two effects. The main one is to compensate the person for the real injury incurred and a secondary one to ensure that there isn't a recurrence of this type of incident.

In this case, while the main injury caused was minor, it was also clear that Starbucks staff had little or no training on these kinds of issues, and an award that would result in demonstrable change was required. This was achieved as by the time the award was publicised, which is usually a few months after the decision, Starbucks had already retrained the employees at that store, and presumably all their other Irish stores as well.

Compensation culture mainly occurs when the main reason for compensation is unjustifiably exaggerated.

golondrinas1

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

their surname is Foley. what exactly should we be looking for when we google that surname?

Cups with slanty eyes. They are worth good money to certain ethics or is that racist.?

Gaoth Laidir

blanch152 wrote: »

I wouldn't class this one as compensation culture.

Compensation awards should have two effects. The main one is to compensate the person for the real injury incurred and a secondary one to ensure that there isn't a recurrence of this type of incident.

In this case, while the main injury caused was minor, it was also clear that Starbucks staff had little or no training on these kinds of issues, and an award that would result in demonstrable change was required. This was achieved as by the time the award was publicised, which is usually a few months after the decision, Starbucks had already retrained the employees at that store, and presumably all their other Irish stores as well.

Compensation culture mainly occurs when the main reason for compensation is unjustifiably exaggerated.

Such as in this case. If you want to fine the business then fine [/pun], but the "injury" caused (boo hoo) did not warrant her being paid 12K. She admitted herself that she didn't want to take if further but the boyfriend and his grandmother saw the € signs and said, no, you can cash in on this.

Read the transcript.

0ph0rce0

0ph0rce0 wrote: »

I'd love to see the actual drawing, I bet you the picture looked something like an emoji smiley face.




Big racist emoji bastards

Just read the report there.

I see it states

"The complainant was asked why the image was offensive given that it is drawn like an emoji"

I knew it was gonna be that. I bet she gets emojis through messages everyday from family and friends and I bet she doesn't go looking for 12 grand off them every time she gets one.


****in chancer.


"The boyfriend denied making this statement. He said that he had not said anything offensive but accepted that he may have referred to the employee’s skin colour in saying how the drawing had impacted on the complainant"

Will the employee get 12K for being called a black **** ???

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I don’t class this as a normal BS compo claim. What that employee did was racist and this sends a message. And it’s not a small, struggling business.

How was it racist though? The was no offense intended by the employee. No hatred. No superiority. No nasty following comments or jokes. No language associated with the image to insult the person. Ignorant, sure. But racist? The bar for racism is really being lowered to cover just about anything.

Ash.J.Williams

pgj2015 wrote: »

it is. why is slanty eyes an insult?

Do you ever leave the village?

blanch152

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Such as in this case. If you want to fine the business then fine [/pun], but the "injury" caused (boo hoo) did not warrant her being paid 12K. She admitted herself that she didn't want to take if further but the boyfriend and his grandmother saw the € signs and said, no, you can cash in on this.

Read the transcript.

You can't fine the company, there is no provision in Irish law to do so (correct me if I am wrong).

The only remedy open to the law is an equality case such as this, hence the need for the demonstration effect.

1874

blanch152 wrote: »

I wouldn't class this one as compensation culture.

Compensation awards should have two effects. The main one is to compensate the person for the real injury incurred and a secondary one to ensure that there isn't a recurrence of this type of incident.

In this case, while the main injury caused was minor, it was also clear that Starbucks staff had little or no training on these kinds of issues, and an award that would result in demonstrable change was required. This was achieved as by the time the award was publicised, which is usually a few months after the decision, Starbucks had already retrained the employees at that store, and presumably all their other Irish stores as well.

Compensation culture mainly occurs when the main reason for compensation is unjustifiably exaggerated.

Compensation culture mainly occurs when the main reason for compensation is unjustifiably exaggerated.

Im astounded that you say all that and still your last paragraph is the above, how was that whole situation not exaggerated? im with the poster who said I hope she dumps the chap and makes off with her 12k, because it seems like the boyfriend pressed this, it seems like she went along with it and even he had his granny in on the act, that is just strange, and what age is she, her Dad weighing in too.
How that WRC report read made it sound like they made a bigger deal of an unintended offence from someone not clued in that its not ok to make personal references, but in no way does it look like it was intentional blatant racism, if anything Inthink mixed race is more common in Brazil. Starbucks policy of writing names is thick imo, in this instance they apologised and offered 500? of vouchers, they had training in place by the the hearing date. Can you see it if Starbucks had fired the employee, theyd be up in the WRC for the original complaint, and then back to the WRC for the sacking. This whole thing is about the boyfriend virue signalling a perceived slight against his girlfriend and denying the opportunity of a reasonable apology.
Looks like the apple didnt fall far from the tree and why was the accusation of his alleged racism just dismissed. Starbucks shouldnt have made reference to the word slanty in their defence, should have just called it what it was, a genuine stupid mistake, sounds like they were clutching at straws to defend themselves and the WRC are virtue signalling they wont do anyone wrong in a claim of racism no matter how tenuous.
Based on the alleged racist insult, its appears the Barista is not white, can you imagine if they were,or a bloke?!

Starbucks should end that name writing nonsense, might go in there and say my name is bastard though, then sue them for offending me, ching ching (thats an old fashioned cash machine sound).

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Deleted User wrote: »

How was it racist though? The was no offense intended by the employee. No hatred. No superiority. No nasty following comments or jokes. No language associated with the image to insult the person. Ignorant, sure. But racist? The bar for racism is really being lowered to cover just about anything.

Yes, I’m pretty sure many people say racist things and don’t mean anything by it. Unfortunately, that’s not how it works. The person on the receiving end took it as racist. And can you tell her she was wrong? The whole thing of casual racism is that it usually isn’t said with invective. It’s thoughtless. And it’s actually something that requires more vigilance around it than overt, threatening racism. “I wasn’t thinking” just isn’t good enough, I’m afraid. Sure, we could all use that excuse to execrete shite from our mouths. And actually, it was a level above throwaway.

AND I’m not sure how you can speak with such surety of the employee’s motivation. Unless you are the employee, you don’t know what the thought process was.

Gaoth Laidir

The good thing is that their request for anonymity was refused so their names are out in the public. Only thing is that so are the Starbuck workers'.

It's like that other one who spilt coffee on herself when holding the cup between her legs in the driving seat at a McDonald's drive through in Clondalkin. She got 30K out of if cos she said the lid wasn't on properly. Absolutely ridiculous.

RobbieTheRobber

1874 wrote: »

Compensation culture mainly occurs when the main reason for compensation is unjustifiably exaggerated.

Im astounded that you say all that and still your last paragraph is the above, how was that whole situation not exaggerated? im with the poster who said I hope she dumps the chap and makes off with her 12k, because it seems like the boyfriend pressed this, it seems like she went along with it and even he had his granny in on the act, that is just strange, and what age is she, her Dad weighing in too.
How that WRC report read made it sound like they made a bigger deal of an unintended offence from someone not clued in that its not ok to make personal references, but in no way does it look like it was intentional blatant racism, if anything Inthink mixed race is more common in Brazil. Starbucks policy of writing names is thick imo, in this instance they apologised and offered 500? of vouchers, they had training in place by the the hearing date. Can you see it if Starbucks had fired the employee, theyd be up in the WRC for the original complaint, and then back to the WRC for the sacking. This whole thing is about the boyfriend virue signalling a perceived slight against his girlfriend and denying the opportunity of a reasonable apology.
Looks like the apple didnt fall far from the tree and why was the accusation of his alleged racism just dismissed. Starbucks shouldnt have made reference to the word slanty in their defence, should have just called it what it was, a genuine stupid mistake, sounds like they were clutching at straws to defend themselves and the WRC are virtue signalling they wont do anyone wrong in a claim of racism no matter how tenuous.
Based on the alleged racist insult, its appears the Barista is not white, can you imagine if they were,or a bloke?!

Starbucks should end that name writing nonsense, might go in there and say my name is bastard though, then sue them for offending me, ching ching (thats an old fashioned cash machine sound).

Jaysus the outrage is strong in you isn't it.

You are even attempting to be outraged on behalf of a racist white male Brazilian barista you made up for your little story.

RobbieTheRobber

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

The good thing is that their request for anonymity was refused so their names are out in the public. Only thing is that so are the Starbuck workers'.

It's like that other one who spilt coffee on herself when holding the cup between her legs in the driving seat at a McDonald's drive through in Clondalkin. She got 30K out of if cos she said the lid wasn't on properly. Absolutely ridiculous.

Why did the drive through attendant in that case also draw a racist cartoon?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

beakerjoe

Is the victim here a chancer? probably.

Personally Ive had falls, errors and other **** happen to me. Ive never felt like I wanted to sue someone. Had i got injured and required some money to pay for me being out of pocket? maybe Id sue. Ive never been in a position to sue. I always think of that lad that got bad tackle in a 5 a side match and sued because of his injures and think Id have loads of claims if I had that mindset.

I personally wouldnt sue somewhere if my feelings were hurt like the victim in this case.

Was it racist? no, not in my opinion. It involved race, but isnt racist. It wasnt used in a intended hurtful or hateful manner. Like Cavani who plays for united. It involves a racist term but wasnt used in a racist manner.

The judges are at fault here IMO. Even if your one was deepely offended. Give her 100 quid and send her on her way. It didnt affect her life, no realistic mental scarring, no injuries.

12k is just silly money for what happened. .

TomTomTim

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Yes, I’m pretty sure many people say racist things and don’t mean anything by it. Unfortunately, that’s not how it works. The person on the receiving end took it as racist. And can you tell her she was wrong? The whole thing of casual racism is that it usually isn’t said with invective. It’s thoughtless. And it’s actually something that requires more vigilance around it than overt, threatening racism. “I wasn’t thinking” just isn’t good enough, I’m afraid. Sure, we could all use that excuse to execrete shite from our mouths. And actually, it was a level above throwaway.

AND I’m not sure how you can speak with such surety of the employee’s motivation. Unless you are the employee, you don’t know what the thought process was.

Perception isn't reality, no matter how much you try and make it so. If someone said something without racial intent, then it isn't racist, as they had no intention of being racist. You are considered transphobic by certain posters on this site. If you're being logically consistent, then their perception is reality according to the statement you've just made.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

TomTomTim wrote: »

Perception isn't reality, not matter how much you try and make it so. If someone said something without racial intent, then it isn't racist, as they had no intention of being racist.

Right, right. Drop the N bomb in a crowded place there, Tom. And then say that you didn’t mean it in a racist way. See how you get on. You wouldn’t do it, would you?

beakerjoe

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Right, right. Drop the N bomb in a crowded place there, Tom. And then say that you didn’t mean it in a racist way. See how you get on. You wouldn’t do it, would you?

Its about context.

Calling someone an N word and drawing a picture not intended to be racist (going by the account in the article) are two different things.

1874

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Jaysus the outrage is strong in you isn't it.

You are even attempting to be outraged on behalf of a racist white male Brazilian barista you made up for your little story.

They pulled a fast one, end of,the footage referred to states they are laughing, while discomfort may have been experienced, this was not racism, any outrage is in the belief this situation was racist.
€1000 max would have been a reasonable award, as slap on the wrist for starbucks stupidily not having training in place for staff not to act foolishly. There was no lasting effects of Starbucks stupidity on said offended persons.

Overheal

beakerjoe wrote: »

Its about context.

Calling someone an N word and drawing a picture not intended to be racist (going by the account in the article) are two different things.

The context is, it's starbucks, where they simply ask you your name and write it horribly on the cup. For some reason this barista decided a name wasn't a useful thing to use and instead used a racial stereotype in emoji form. I guess asking her name was of no use?

beakerjoe

1874 wrote: »

They pulled a fast one, end of,the footage referred to states they are laughing, while discomfort may have been experienced, this was not racism, any outrage is in the belief this situation was racist.
€1000 max would have been a reasonable award, as slap on the wrist for starbucks stupidily not having training in place for staff not to act foolishly. There was no lasting effects of Starbucks stupidity on said offended persons.

1000? Why so large?

Id go 100, 200 max.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

beakerjoe wrote: »

Its about context.

Calling someone an N word and drawing a picture not intended to be racist (going by the account in the article) are two different things.

Yup, now you are trying to qualify what you said.

I didn’t ask if you would call somebody directly the N word. I asked if you would go to a crowded place and use the word loudly to nobody in particular. Would you? It’s all about context, right?

And what happened in Starbucks was done directly TO somebody. You said that you wouldn’t directly call somebody the N word. The Starbucks incident was directed at a particular person. You’re all over the place.

Overheal

beakerjoe wrote: »

1000? Why so large?

Id go 100, 200 max.

IDK what the going rate is for legal representation that makes it to court in Ireland, but in the US an attorney can easily cost you many thousands of dollars.

beakerjoe

Overheal wrote: »

The context is, it's starbucks, where they simply ask you your name and write it horribly on the cup. For some reason this barista decided a name wasn't a useful thing to use and instead used a racial stereotype in emoji form. I guess asking her name was of no use?

But is it the same level of offence to call some the N word?

I believe it was more ignorance than hateful.

Gaoth Laidir

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Why did the drive through attendant in that case also draw a racist cartoon?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

Not sure why the false equivalence claim was brought up. My point was that these two separate incidents are both similar in that they involve disproportionately high awards for the "victims" and are symptomatic of the claims culture in this country. You hold a hot coffee cup between your legs and then claim because you spilt it. Crazy.

beakerjoe

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Yup, now you are trying to qualify what you said.

I didn’t ask if you would call somebody directly the N word. I asked if you would go to a crowded place and use the word loudly to nobody in particular. Would you? It’s all about context, right?

And what happened in Starbucks was done directly TO somebody. You said that you wouldn’t directly call somebody the N word. The Starbucks incident was directed at a particular person. You’re all over the place.

Ive used the N word in a crowded room before when quoting a movie? Does this make me racist?

If someone calls me whitey when Im in Asia I dont get offended.

Its ignorant but not racist.

Overheal

beakerjoe wrote: »

But is it the same level of offence to call some the N word?

I believe it was more ignorance than hateful.

It's not a worthwhile comparison.

'Sure after all it's not murder, so case dismissed.'

beakerjoe

Overheal wrote: »

It's not a worthwhile comparison.

'Sure after all it's not murder, so case dismissed.'

I didnt say dismiss it, I just dont see 12k being a reasonable award.

RobbieTheRobber

1874 wrote: »

They pulled a fast one, end of,the footage referred to states they are laughing, while discomfort may have been experienced, this was not racism, any outrage is in the belief this situation was racist.
€1000 max would have been a reasonable award, as slap on the wrist for starbucks stupidily not having training in place for staff not to act foolishly. There was no lasting effects of Starbucks stupidity on said offended persons.

How did they "pull a fast one". Is there some part of the story I am missing where the complainant or her boyfriend induced the barista into the drawing of the racist imagery?

If not how can you can you claim the complainant "pulled a fast one"?

Bobblehats

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

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.

- well they’d be the equivalent of our very own lemmings; right off that sheer face.

tylercheribini

Tbh, I am not shedding a tear about the mighty Starbucks losing pennies.

Overheal

beakerjoe wrote: »

I didnt say dismiss it, I just dont see 12k being a reasonable award.

I'd like to know the formula also, but a lot of that is going to be eaten up by court and attorney fees. Seems the central argument was the Starbucks franchisee didn't properly train the staffer.