Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NY chef awarded $1.6 million after restaurant owner acts stupid

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • NY chef awarded $1.6 million after restaurant owner acts stupid




    The owner of a chain of Mexican restaurants in New York has been ordered to pay a chef who is a lesbian $1.6 million after repeatedly saying that “gay people” were “going to go to hell” in staff meetings.

    According to Courthouse News Service, a New York Appeals court ordered Edward Globokar, principal owner of Gloria’s Tribeca Inc. and Gloria’s Tribecamex, to pay Mirella Salemi $400,000 in compensatory damages and $1.2 million in punitive damages.

    The defendants operated a chain of Mexican restaurants in New York called Mary Ann’s. The staff meetings described in the suit occurred between 2004 and 2007. It is unclear who owns Mary Ann’s today.
    The year's at the spring
    And day's at the morn;
    Morning's at seven;
    The hill-side's dew-pearled;
    The lark's on the wing;
    The snail's on the thorn:
    God's in his heaven—
    All's right with the world!

  • #2
    Originally posted by Novaheart View Post
    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/3...ing-a-lesbian/


    The owner of a chain of Mexican restaurants in New York has been ordered to pay a chef who is a lesbian $1.6 million after repeatedly saying that “gay people” were “going to go to hell” in staff meetings.

    According to Courthouse News Service, a New York Appeals court ordered Edward Globokar, principal owner of Gloria’s Tribeca Inc. and Gloria’s Tribecamex, to pay Mirella Salemi $400,000 in compensatory damages and $1.2 million in punitive damages.

    The defendants operated a chain of Mexican restaurants in New York called Mary Ann’s. The staff meetings described in the suit occurred between 2004 and 2007. It is unclear who owns Mary Ann’s today.
    And you think this is a good idea?
    If it pays, it stays

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Frostbit View Post
      And you think this is a good idea?
      Mostly I am surprised that someone in a position to own a chain of restaurants is so stupid as to behave that way. You simply do not evangelize, demonize, or ostracize your employees in 2014. Take your pick for what kind of hostile workplace this creates. Restaurants are typically a tad bawdier in behavior and more tolerant of what some consider "unprofessional" because it's more like an ensemble cast than an office crew. But that only works because people understand respect. Obviously, Mr. Golawhatever didn't get the memo on respect for your employees. A lot of restaurant owners don't. This one got it with a lot of zeros.
      The year's at the spring
      And day's at the morn;
      Morning's at seven;
      The hill-side's dew-pearled;
      The lark's on the wing;
      The snail's on the thorn:
      God's in his heaven—
      All's right with the world!

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Novaheart View Post
        Mostly I am surprised that someone in a position to own a chain of restaurants is so stupid as to behave that way. You simply do not evangelize, demonize, or ostracize your employees in 2014. Take your pick for what kind of hostile workplace this creates. Restaurants are typically a tad bawdier in behavior and more tolerant of what some consider "unprofessional" because it's more like an ensemble cast than an office crew. But that only works because people understand respect. Obviously, Mr. Golawhatever didn't get the memo on respect for your employees. A lot of restaurant owners don't. This one got it with a lot of zeros.
        I repeat....And you think this is a good idea?
        If it pays, it stays

        Comment


        • #5
          If it were eventually proven that the owner was right, does he get his money back?
          We are so fucked.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Frostbit View Post
            I repeat....And you think this is a good idea?
            It's a conditional answer.

            If it's a single location with a single owner then I think he's pretty much free to hire whom he wants to hire. This is consistent with the Fair Housing exception for owner occupied buildings of less four units or less. I see it as a sort of Boarding House Exception but for the workplace. Most small workplaces, proprietorships are exempt from Equal Employment rules anyway.

            This being a chain of restaurants, then yes, I think this is a good idea. Otherwise we return to the days of tyrants like Henry Ford who tie pay to religious performance. Surely you don't approve of paying people more because they belong to a certain church, right?
            The year's at the spring
            And day's at the morn;
            Morning's at seven;
            The hill-side's dew-pearled;
            The lark's on the wing;
            The snail's on the thorn:
            God's in his heaven—
            All's right with the world!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by gary m View Post
              If it were eventually proven that the owner was right, does he get his money back?
              If he can get God to testify directly (not through a spokesman), that would make a pretty compelling case. Otherwise, he can file a countersuit in the afterlife.
              Enjoy.

              Comment


              • #8
                This part kinda changes everything...

                According to Salemi, who sued under the New York City Human Rights Law, Globokar compelled his staff to attend weekly prayer meetings that were essentially mandatory because with the restaurant staff believing they would lose their jobs if they failed to attend.
                Still not convinced that it was worth 1.6 mil when there was no mention in the story that she was chained to a stove and forced to work there at the point of a gun, but requiring attendance at prayer meetings is a bit excessive.
                We are so fucked.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by gary m View Post
                  This part kinda changes everything...



                  Still not convinced that it was worth 1.6 mil when there was no mention in the story that she was chained to a stove and forced to work there at the point of a gun, but requiring attendance at prayer meetings is a bit excessive.
                  A hefty reverse tithe!!
                  If it pays, it stays

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by gary m View Post
                    This part kinda changes everything...



                    Still not convinced that it was worth 1.6 mil when there was no mention in the story that she was chained to a stove and forced to work there at the point of a gun, but requiring attendance at prayer meetings is a bit excessive.
                    What if you're required to attend the weekly BMI screenings, smoking cessation programs, or sensitivity training workshops?
                    Not where I breathe, but where I love, I live...
                    Robert Southwell, S.J.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by phillygirl View Post
                      What if you're required to attend the weekly BMI screenings, smoking cessation programs, or sensitivity training workshops?
                      Good point. It's the same thing but with a 21st century rationalization slapped on it.

                      Save your soul or save the company from your non-work lifestyle. It's identical in terms of personal freedom unless you think it's okay for your employer to own you 24/7.

                      Quite a lot do.
                      "Alexa, slaughter the fatted calf."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Gingersnap View Post
                        Good point. It's the same thing but with a 21st century rationalization slapped on it.

                        Save your soul or save the company from your non-work lifestyle. It's identical in terms of personal freedom unless you think it's okay for your employer to own you 24/7.

                        Quite a lot do.
                        It's the new religions of diversity, greenness, and fitness. Everyone's got a religion, and a god/gods. Some call it Yahweh and others call it Prius.
                        Not where I breathe, but where I love, I live...
                        Robert Southwell, S.J.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by phillygirl View Post
                          It's the new religions of diversity, greenness, and fitness. Everyone's got a religion, and a god/gods. Some call it Yahweh and others call it Prius.
                          The New Religion is a lot more intrusive than old one. You could hide sexual sins or impiety but if you're fat, well........you're hellbound and everyone knows it.
                          "Alexa, slaughter the fatted calf."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Gingersnap View Post
                            The New Religion is a lot more intrusive than old one. You could hide sexual sins or impiety but if you're fat, well........you're hellbound and everyone knows it.
                            How do you think those hell fires keep burning?
                            If it pays, it stays

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by phillygirl View Post
                              What if you're required to attend the weekly BMI screenings, smoking cessation programs, or sensitivity training workshops?
                              I'm all for employers providing opportunities to be healthier, but entirely opposed to mandatory intrusions into people's personal choices. An employer is entirely within her rights to ban smoking on the premises (PLEASE! Running the gantlet of smokers to get to the door is one of my least favorite things). Not OK to test people to see if they smoke off the job or compel attendance at smoking cessation programs.

                              I don't frankly think "sensitivity training" as generally conceived is very effective. I do think sessions on how not to cost your employer money by sharing your more dumb-assed beliefs in the workplace are reasonable to require. Screw trying to convince people that diversity is good for them. Not trashing your co-workers is simply professional behavior and should be required. But you can't discipline people unless they were warned. Have periodic meetings at which you explain what a "hostile workplace" is and announce that there will be adverse consequences for anybody who feels compelled to discourse on their moral objections to race mixing, Catholicism (yes, I worked once with a fundimentalist who routinely announced that Catholics were "idol-worshippers), premarital cohabitation, homosexuality, off-beat religions, single parenting or any of the various permutations of political affiliations.
                              "Since the historic ruling, the Lovings have become icons for equality. Mildred released a statement on the 40th anniversary of the ruling in 2007: 'I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, Black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.'." - Mildred Loving (Loving v. Virginia)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X