Starbucks to pay $25m for firing a white woman for being white.
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
Comments (51)
sorted by:
Let's get that pendulum flying back like an executioner's axe.
I am willing to accept only white women winning these sorts of cases if the end result is a society that no longer discriminates against whites and such cases become non-existent before a man can get a pay out.
Bwahahaha get fucked by your own rules you idiots!
This was entirely Starbucks fault. They made it so incredibly obvious that the white employee was being targeted and the black employees weren't.
Most companies aren't this bold and stupid, I'm guessing removing all the 'woke' stuff is a product of this decision because Starbucks realized they have some true morons in their HR departments who will cost them serious money.
I can't even imagine what a fuckup you'd have to be to lose this lawsuit in a society where anti-white discrimination is not only accepted, but expected...as long as you play by the rules.
All you have to do is fire her without giving a reason, or give some bullshit reason, then fill the position with a want ad that says "we highly value diversity and encourage marginalized people to apply". Everyone knows what that means but nobody can protest it because technically it's not saying anything bad. Presto, bulletproof discrimination.
We're not quite at the level where you can just say "white people need not apply" yet, although we are very, very close.
What was the "Rittenhouse Square" incident?
Yep. Pretty standard practice anyway. If you're not a customer the bathroom is a courtesy.
It was obvious from the start that the only reason it went anywhere was because the race card got played.
If memory serves, Starbucks responded by making bathrooms basically free for alls, no questions asked. Then backed down from that very quickly when they became junkie dens of death.
There is no way Starbucks would have lost if it was a man. My faith in the judicial system is 0
because the discrimination was so blatant, that they caused her to get death threats, and that it's punitive damages.
How did she prove that it was because she was white? Isn’t this where a company cooks up some bullshit underperformance metric to justify the termination?
Reading into it, she wasn't the store manager, she was a regional manager. They apparently jumped up the ladder from the person directly responsible for the "incident," who was black. There must not have been any issues with her work that she could prove her firing was otherwise meritless.
Pennsylvania is a right to work state (are there any that aren’t?) so the “your employer can fire you for any reason or no reason at all” thing applies. Unless there’s a union involved. But Starbucks has been hesitant to work with unions and back then I’m pretty sure they didn’t allow them at all.
Shit, TheImp might be right. She got a pussy pass. That’s normally an unwinnable fight.
Quick search tells me PA does not have right to work. Nor does New Jersey, where this court case was held (her region covered places in both states).
Bullshit. I worked in New Jersey. It’s a right to work state.
Its not, its an "at will" employment state. You can google it.
The problem is "right to work" laws don't mean what most people think they mean because "at will" means "can be fired for any reason, whenever" which is what people think right to work means.
Those aren't the same thing. An employer who can fire you for no reason still can't fire you for any reason - though that would shift the burden of proof from the employer to the employee.
You don't have to prove it, the company has to disprove it once you have made a prima facie case.
That the underlying incident happened in a place called RITTENHOUSE Square just shows you that God is on our side and has a sense of humor.
This needs to keep happening. Maybe it will get some companies to abandon DEI VPs
As cathartic was this is, I'd rather anti-discrimination law not exist so companies can be unafraid of firing the LGBT mob.
That won’t happen until whites claim the same protections as everyone else. Then the left will quickly abandon those tools and create new ones to resume targeting whites.
You mean like how California made discrimination legal so they wouldn't have to let whites and Asians into college?
You're operating on consistent logic, these people don't work that way.
There could be a hundred laws saying "Whites have every protection as any other race and you cannot discriminate against them"
They'd find a way anyways, or just ignore it. And if you take them to court you'll just hear 'something something racism, maybe he said kneegrow' etc.
You cannot get ahead of these people from a non-violence standpoint because they'll always end up using violence against you. What option does that leave?
The thing is that “companies” are a problem. “Companies” rule the country and so we need to have something to keep them in fucking check. Anti-discrimination laws are good BECAUSE, based on this lawsuit, they can be held responsible for promoting this anti-white, pro-black trash. It just needs to be so aggressively applied that the drop the race baiting filth altogether.
Well that ain't gonna change, so the choice is either let us all get raped with our principles or begin trying to leverage their weapons back on them.
Just as a reminder of what this is about... because Officer Darren Wilson wasn't indicted in shooting Michael Brown, vengeance had to be taken against mayos for the crime of literally being white and a regional manager. She was never involved in the original incident. This was purely a major effort at racial vengeance mongering against morally inferior races.
To be clear: These men had committed a trespass. These men went to starbucks and were sat down. They then decided they would not purchase anything and would use the restroom. Starbucks policy at that store, at that time, required that only paying customers could use the restroom. They refused to buy anything either to use the restroom, or to even order. Hence, they were asked to leave. They then refused again to buy anything or leave the store. They were informed that if they didn't leave, the police would be called because they were now trespassing. They again refused to leave. When the police arrived, they again refused to leave. Then the police asked them to leave, and they again refused to leave. Then and only then were they arrested for trespass.
Because... you know... they were trespassing.
Original reporting claims that the woman who called the police was named "Holly" and immediately "quit" her job after the racial vengeance incident. The black male store manager was the one who prompted Holly to call the police in the first place. The individual who was awarded this settlement is "Shannon Phillips" who is a totally unrelated regional manager whom was not present. She was the black store manager's Regional Manager. She was ordered by her black female area manager to fire a different white store manager. Her refusal to support this panicked purging of white managers and employees in response to the racial vengeance incident is what caused her to be fired.
So these black employees are racist against white employees?
Keep in mind this is a tactical win but a strategic loss as it just means that companies have to pay more and more for this shit, draining society further which is the marxists goal.
The best outcome would be no civil suits like this at all.
Good. More of this.
When the jury isn't in on the joke and actually believes in 'racism'.
Failing upwards? She managed a fucking Starbucks. Not exactly the height of success.
You really need to work on grasping the concept of two things being bad at once. It's bad that she got fired for being white, it's bad that companies discriminate against men.
I'm starting to think he may be cognitively impaired and literally incapable of grasping more than a single concept at a time.
I sincerely think he's schizophrenic.
Clearly he took a personal interest in her career years ago, like some sort of sports talent scout, except for Starbucks employees. Probably researching to know exactly when to time a short of Starbucks' stock. That puts him in the position to be uniquely qualified to know whether or not she had received unearned promotions.
My guess is that the general public is starting to have black people fatigue do to all the BLM, open racism towards white people, blackwashing everything. So while a white woman would be lower on the victimhood stack for things like jobs, promotions and education opportunities she won do to fatigue.