|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 3:31 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| CentralCali wrote: |
| Oh, I'm all for companies showing loyalty to their employees, provided their employees are not doing whatever they can to sabotage the business. How is that concept unclear to you? |
Who is the better judge of whether this man is doing whatever he can to sabotage the company:
1) The people he actually works for every day, who have all the relevant information at their disposal.
2) Some guy in Korea whose total understanding of the situation comes from having read a news article, on the Internet, which consisted largely of quotes from a lawyer representing a woman seeking a huge cash payout.
Tough call, right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Dodge7
Joined: 21 Oct 2011
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 4:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have a student that says "sha lahng sha lahng" when I say something and she doesn't understand. This is exactly an apples to apples comparison. Can I sue her parents?
Btw teachers, if you hear this, they are mocking you. When they say "sha lahng sha lahng" it is just like saying "ching chong chin" to a Chinese person back home.
Koreans are some racists mofos. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Died By Bear
Joined: 13 Jul 2010
Location: On the big lake they call Gitche Gumee
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 7:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dodge7 wrote: |
I have a student that says "sha lahng sha lahng" when I say something and she doesn't understand. This is exactly an apples to apples comparison. Can I sue her parents?
Btw teachers, if you hear this, they are mocking you. When they say "sha lahng sha lahng" it is just like saying "ching chong chin" to a Chinese person back home.
Koreans are some racists mofos. |
So in the USA the streets are paved with gold, and people sue for this stuff! Yeah, freedom baby!  Join the FSA! (Free Shit Army) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 8:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| CentralCali wrote: |
| Oh, I'm all for companies showing loyalty to their employees, provided their employees are not doing whatever they can to sabotage the business. How is that concept unclear to you? |
Who is the better judge of whether this man is doing whatever he can to sabotage the company:
1) The people he actually works for every day, who have all the relevant information at their disposal.
2) Some guy in Korea whose total understanding of the situation comes from having read a news article, on the Internet, which consisted largely of quotes from a lawyer representing a woman seeking a huge cash payout.
Tough call, right? |
Not tough at all. It's fairly obvious to someone in China like, say, me, that intentionally pissing off paying customers is sabotaging the business. The people who work with the dude in question may or may not be racist jackasses too. At the least they have some bias in his favor if they're working "day in and day out" with him. But the dude in question proved he's a racist jackass when it counts: intentionally pissing off a paying customer with a racist stunt.
As for the huge cash payout, it's fairly common in lawsuits to initially seek a large amount. Feel free to consider that a nuisance tactic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 2:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CentralCali wrote: |
Not tough at all. It's fairly obvious to someone in China like, say, me, that intentionally pissing off paying customers is sabotaging the business. |
The correct answer was not choice #2, CentralCali.
| CentralCali wrote: |
| The people who work with the dude in question may or may not be racist jackasses too. |
Yes, so now you're doubling down and suggesting that if this company doesn't immediately terminate the man in question for making a single mistake of which we know, then they may be guilty as well. Defend a witch, be accused of witch-craft. Thanks for doing your part to keep the hysterical witch hunts going, I'm sure your small contribution to America's progressive collapse into a Kindergarten-esque society will not be in vain.
Have a nice day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
radcon
Joined: 23 May 2011
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The company said they would give the perp sensitivity training. That should be the end of it. The "victim" should be very satisfied with this since if the company just fired him outright, he would receive no training and would be free to unleash his evil and make further victims suffer.
I would hope that a psychologist or counselor in New Jersey would offer the victim their services and treatment pro bono. The victim could alleviate her post traumatic stress and anguish and would not be in need of a million bucks and could drop her lawsuit. Think she would go for this? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| They should just give her 5 minutes where she can just make fun of everything about him, his personal appearance, the fact that he works in the service industry, etc. etc. and he can't defend himself. That way the punishment fits the crime. If I was the company boss I'd fire the guy for plain stupidity, rather than lack of sensitivity. If someone is that stupid to do something where they know they will be caught, then why would anyone trust them to be a good worker. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 7:58 pm Post subject: Re: CVS Pharmacy sued for racial slur |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
I want someone on this thread to give a compelling reason why this woman should not sue and claim $1 million. |
The reason is that, given she did not experience one million dollars (or even one penny) of actual damage, |
She hasn't received anything yet, and its very doubtful she will ever get a $1 million verdict. She almost certainly will not receive that much in a settlement. Centralcali had the right idea: pleading $1 million in damages is very different from getting a jury award of $1 million. But unless she pleads $1 million, in most states, she will not get $1 million.
I am happy to see that nobody has yet argued that this is a frivolous lawsuit. After all, the offensive moniker is displayed very clearly on the receipt. So, liability is assured. CVS owes her something, the question comes down to just how much.
Fools like the OP will report these lawsuits with a kind of smug stupidity, seemingly asking what has the world come to, such that individuals would presume to file lawsuits against mega-corporations and ask for meaningful penalties. Well, why the hell should this woman take a seat on the back of the bus?
You should know that this woman's right to compensation derives from statute, and not mere common law (although doubtless her lawyer has pled intentional infliction of emotional distress). Federal law prohibits discrimination in public accommodations on racial grounds, among other grounds.
| Quote: |
Laws Prohibiting Discrimination in Public Accommodations: Race, Color, Religion, and National Origin
Federal law prohibits public accommodations from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. If you think that you have been discriminated against in using such a facility, you may file a complaint with the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, or with the United States attorney in your area. You may also file suit in the U.S. district court.
There are also state laws that broadly prohibit discrimination on the bases of race, color, religion, and national origin in places of public accommodation. To determine whether your state has such a law, you should contact your state or local human rights agency, your state attorney general's office, or speak to a Civil Rights attorney in your area. |
| Fox wrote: |
| You cannot seriously be defending a pathetic kind of "lottery" wherein being being a consumer who ends up on the wrong side of trivial mockery results in a huge payout, so what's your angle here? |
A lawsuit is hardly a lottery. No doubt, this woman will be subjected to a deposition after which she will face testimony. I do not see her establishing damages before a jury without describing convincingly and in detail the humiliation she experienced. Do not get me wrong, the racial slur is not the end of the world, and her courtroom experience will be a cakewalk next to the tribulations that rape and assault victims experience when conveying events to a jury. But, it is a lot more work and commitment than playing the stupid tax, to be sure.
What is more, a lot of this thread smacks of victim-blaming arising from envy. Oh, I wish I could sue Koreans for their discrimination! I certainly remember the fury I felt in Korea upon being denied entry to a place of public accommodation based on my race. But, Korea is a different place. And apparently many of you seem to agree with Korea that racial minorities should be limited to administrative protections (i.e., make your complaint with the proper foreigner office and watch them do very little). Very well, be happy you are here, then. But America has made reducing these kinds of incidents public policy.
Now, how does the lawyer in good conscience arrive at $1 million? I cannot be certain, but I offer the following plausible calculations:
$100,000 in actual damages (humiliation, distress, embarassment, counseling, therapy, reminders of incident each day she walks into another place of public accommodation, etc).
$900,000 in punitive damages.
Punitive damages are meant to punish the wrongdoer. In this case, CVS's failure to fire or properly discipline its worker may be interpreted as a kind of tepid affirmation of the employee's conduct. Thus, if CVS acted with willfulness or reckless disregard to the law, best it be punished in the manner which civil law does, through monetary damages. Punitive damages are only secondarily a windfall to the victim, although some theorize that it is the payment for prosecuting the wrong and a kind of compensation for the private expense and risk of a suit.
The Supreme Court has limited punitive damages to about nine times the amount of actual damages. This ratio-limit again makes pleading and establishing damages as high as possible important. Since punitives are directly derived from actual damages, our victim of discrimination will have to show she suffered a $100,000 incident. I apologize to her, but that will be no easy task.
Nevertheless, why in the world would she want to limit herself? That's the jury's job. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 8:29 pm Post subject: Re: CVS Pharmacy sued for racial slur |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| After all, the offensive moniker is displayed very clearly on the receipt. So, liability is assured. CVS owes her something, the question comes down to just how much. |
I feel like your legal training is clouding your ethical clarity here. CVS owes her nothing. It is possible that perversity of law will allow the woman to unjustly seize -- either through court verdict or coercive settlement -- some undeserved cash, but that is at best a defect in Amerucan society.
I am no defender of big corporations. If this corporation or those in its employ had actually harmed her, I would be immediately and without reservation on her side. They have not. Insults of a non-defamatory nature ought to be no business of the law. This kind of pettiness is pure nanny-statery.
She was not discriminated against. She received service, in full, with no meaningful obstruction. Her treatment was not company policy, she received an apology, and a promise that the worker would be reprimanded and better trained. Calling this discrimination is going too far, and alluding to Rosa Parks, even moreso.
| Kuros wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| You cannot seriously be defending a pathetic kind of "lottery" wherein being being a consumer who ends up on the wrong side of trivial mockery results in a huge payout, so what's your angle here? |
A lawsuit is hardly a lottery. |
It is not the lawsuit that is the lottery, it is being lucky enough to be verifiably mocked by an employee in the wrong fashion that is the lottery. A slur on a receipt is like a winning lottery ticket according to your case against CVS here: it entitles you to a cash payout. That is no way to run a society.
| Kuros wrote: |
Nevertheless, why in the world would she want to limit herself? |
Ethical integrity? Dignity? Wanting to be something a little better than a cash-hungry consumer seeking to grab as much as she can? But yes, once lawyers are involved, ethics stops mattering, right?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 8:51 pm Post subject: Re: CVS Pharmacy sued for racial slur |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| After all, the offensive moniker is displayed very clearly on the receipt. So, liability is assured. CVS owes her something, the question comes down to just how much. |
I feel like your legal training is clouding your ethical clarity here. CVS owes her nothing. It is possible that perversity of law will allow the woman to unjustly seize -- either through court verdict or coercive settlement -- some undeserved cash, but that is at best a defect in American society. |
You are just wrong. Read the law.
| Quote: |
| I am no defender of big corporations. If this corporation or those in its employ had actually harmed her, I would be immediately and without reservation on her side. They have not. Insults of a non-defamatory nature ought to be no business of the law. This kind of pettiness is pure nanny-statery. |
Sure, sure. But when Rand Paul stands up and states the same thing, he gets the treatment.
| Quote: |
Rand Paul: [Martin Luther King, Jr.] was fighting legalized and institutionalized racism, and I'd be right there with him.
Rachel Maddow: But maybe voting against the civil rights act, which was not just about governmental discrimination but about public accommodations, the idea that people who provided services open to the public had to do so in a non-discriminatory fashion . . . |
That's exactly what we are talking about now. I want you to process how uncontroversial this law is, and thus how controversial it was for Rand Paul to stand up against it. And yet, this is exactly the kind of suit he wanted to avoid.
Fox. Search your feelings. You know it to be true.
| Quote: |
She was not discriminated against. She received service, in full, with no meaningful obstruction. Her treatment was not company policy, she received an apology, and a promise that the worker would be reprimanded and better trained. Calling this discrimination is going too far, and alluding to Rosa Parks, even moreso. |
Yeah, tell that to a jury. We both know that after the defense has wrung out its legal fees, the CVS manager should have dropped to his feet and handed her $10,000 for a full release of liability and counted himself clever.
| Quote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| You cannot seriously be defending a pathetic kind of "lottery" wherein being being a consumer who ends up on the wrong side of trivial mockery results in a huge payout, so what's your angle here? |
A lawsuit is hardly a lottery. |
It is not the lawsuit that is the lottery, it is being lucky enough to be verifiably mocked by an employee in the wrong fashion that is the lottery. A slur on a receipt is like a winning lottery ticket according to your case against CVS here: it entitles you to a cash payout. That is no way to run a society. |
I am pretty sure her money is right there on the receipt. I cannot make out just quite how much it says, but CVS owes her something.
| Quote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Nevertheless, why in the world would she want to limit herself? |
Ethical integrity? Dignity? Wanting to be something a little better than a cash-hungry consumer seeking to grab as much as she can? But yes, once lawyers are involved, ethics stops mattering, right? |
Now you're just being silly. What's more dignified than suing the shit out of CVS? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 9:43 pm Post subject: Re: CVS Pharmacy sued for racial slur |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| After all, the offensive moniker is displayed very clearly on the receipt. So, liability is assured. CVS owes her something, the question comes down to just how much. |
I feel like your legal training is clouding your ethical clarity here. CVS owes her nothing. It is possible that perversity of law will allow the woman to unjustly seize -- either through court verdict or coercive settlement -- some undeserved cash, but that is at best a defect in American society. |
You are just wrong. Read the law. |
I thought it was fairly clear I was not using the term "owe" here in a legalistic sense, but I'll go ahead and make that explicit. Defective laws, fully or partially so, can and do exist. I understand, given your profession, that you need to acknowledge those laws, but I certainly don't have to do so. Law is not always in accord with justice.
| Kuros wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I am no defender of big corporations. If this corporation or those in its employ had actually harmed her, I would be immediately and without reservation on her side. They have not. Insults of a non-defamatory nature ought to be no business of the law. This kind of pettiness is pure nanny-statery. |
Sure, sure. But when Rand Paul stands up and states the same thing, he gets the treatment.
| Quote: |
Rand Paul: [Martin Luther King, Jr.] was fighting legalized and institutionalized racism, and I'd be right there with him.
Rachel Maddow: But maybe voting against the civil rights act, which was not just about governmental discrimination but about public accommodations, the idea that people who provided services open to the public had to do so in a non-discriminatory fashion . . . |
That's exactly what we are talking about now. I want you to process how uncontroversial this law is, and thus how controversial it was for Rand Paul to stand up against it. And yet, this is exactly the kind of suit he wanted to avoid.
Fox. Search your feelings. You know it to be true. |
Now this isn't quite fair. Surely I can oppose certain very specific subsections of past civil rights legislation without being in league with Rand Paul on this matter; Rand Paul's, "I wouldn't have voted for it!" vs Fox's, "I'd have offered minor amendment," seems sufficiently bold in its contrast to be distinguished. I support general opposition to genuine discrimination vis a vis public accommodations, but the company in question:
1) Does not have a policy of denying service based on race.
2) Provided her the service she desired (development of her pictures).
3) Apologized to this woman and promised to reprimand and better train their employee.
4) As far as I am aware, does not systematically engage in this kind of behavior.
This simply isn't comparable to Rosa Parks. It isn't. If Rosa Parks had been the victim, on a single day only, of a bus operator playing a prank, that would have been a completely different story, and we wouldn't be telling it to our children today. It's the institutionally harmful character of discrimination that is a threat to just society, not one-off jokes.
| Kuros wrote: |
| Quote: |
She was not discriminated against. She received service, in full, with no meaningful obstruction. Her treatment was not company policy, she received an apology, and a promise that the worker would be reprimanded and better trained. Calling this discrimination is going too far, and alluding to Rosa Parks, even moreso. |
Yeah, tell that to a jury. We both know that after the defense has wrung out its legal fees, the CVS manager should have dropped to his feet and handed her $10,000 for a full release of liability and counted himself clever. |
That's probably true, but do you really consider having the unwashed masses on your side a point in your favor with regards to a matter of systematic ethical justice? Besides, CentralCali already illustrated perfectly well the treatment any dissenters will get: either side with the plaintiff, or be considered implicitly guilty of racism yourself.
| Kuros wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Nevertheless, why in the world would she want to limit herself? |
Ethical integrity? Dignity? Wanting to be something a little better than a cash-hungry consumer seeking to grab as much as she can? But yes, once lawyers are involved, ethics stops mattering, right? |
Now you're just being silly. What's more dignified than suing the shit out of CVS? |
You know, I just realized I've been starting at this sentence for over a minute with my brow furrowed. I can't even process it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 21, 2013 4:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Squire wrote: |
| 1 million? I think somewhere between 50 and 100 British pounds would be fair. |
Zero would be fair. Hurt feelings are worth zero. |
If hurt feelings were worth a dollar in korea, I'd be a millionaire within a month.
I propose $2 for every time some 50 yr-old hesitates and backs away from sitting next to me on the subway.
$3 if they sit next to me, go into a cold sweat then dart for the next seat away that becomes available.
$4 If they tell eachother they don't want to sit next to a waeguk.
$100 if they print "WAYGUKIN" on the bottom of my receipt (it happens). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dodge7
Joined: 21 Oct 2011
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 21, 2013 5:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros, man, give it up. Fox made your argument look pretty weak and exposed it. Stop while you're ahead. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 21, 2013 6:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dodge7 wrote: |
| I have a student that says "sha lahng sha lahng" when I say something and she doesn't understand. This is exactly an apples to apples comparison. Can I sue her parents? |
No. Its an apples to lemon comparison.
The public accommodations requirement applies to those who open establishments for the public. Thus, your middle school student has no legal obligation to refrain from ethnic slurs. Plus, dude, she is not an adult.
Furthermore, your only evidence of this statement is your testimony. The plaintiff in this suit has the receipt with the racial slur on it.
I have not seen a compelling argument in opposition to her suit yet. None of these considerations offered would defeat her suit on summary judgment grounds. Meanwhile, CVS has done absolutely nothing for her. She should sue, let loose the dogs of discovery, and watch them squirm.
Last edited by Kuros on Sun Apr 21, 2013 6:33 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joelove
Joined: 12 May 2011
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 21, 2013 6:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
"$100 if they print "WAYGUKIN" on the bottom of my receipt (it happens)."
===
== Surely that's not enough to cover the therapy needed to restore your mental health. Why, I've spent thousands of dollars trying to undo the deep psychological damage caused by hearing "hello" and laughter from grown men in China. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
