Popeyes employee in trouble!

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by biosurfer1

That is completely ridiculous. Under your logic, no company would ever be responsible for anything their employees did because it's NEVER part of any company policy to do anything illegal.

That is not what I said at all. You either misunderstood, or are intentionally exaggerating.

Originally Posted by biosurfer1

So Walmart shouldn't have been held responsible when their driver fell asleep behind the wheel and ran into Tracy Morgan's bus killing people and putting him in a coma? Pretty sure it's not in Walmarts policy to do that.

If the driver fell asleep because Walmart had him on the road too long, had him working back to back shifts with too little rest, then yes - they share liability. If it were truly something Walmart had done that caused him to nod off, then absolutely, they would be liable.

If, on the other hand, the driver was up too late partying, had through his own actions deprived himself of sleep, why would Walmart be liable? If the guy had health issues that he kept from Walmart, why would they be liable?

This whole notion that an employer is "liable" for the aberrant deeds of each and every employee (at least while they are on the clock) has got to stop. I know Americans love to sue, and it is pretty fruitless to sue some low level employee with no assets. Far more profitable to sue the employer, who had absolutely no control over, had absolutely nothing to do with the crime committed.

So, those of you touting Popeye's responsibility for this are, by insinuation, asserting that Popeye's was negligent in preventing this man from attacking this woman. You are asserting that Popeye's failed to do something. Please, then, explain what that "something" might be. Something tangible - some area in which Popeye's clearly failed. Something you would put in place, in your own business, to prevent an employee from doing something similar.

[Joe Bob]

Forty years ago, I pulled into a Popeye drive thru in Daytona Beach....gotta couple a couple of thighs and a draft beer.....

Gotta love Floriduh.

[WPOZZZ]

Was at Popeyes last night. I think myself and a bunch of other people wanted to body slam the incompetent employees. About 10 of us were waiting about 35 minutes for our food. Back of the house people weren't smart enough to adapt and make more spicy chicken to fulfill the orders. Instead, they just kept on making the mild stuff.

[unclebilly]

Originally Posted by biosurfer1

That is completely ridiculous. Under your logic, no company would ever be responsible for anything their employees did because it's NEVER part of any company policy to do anything illegal.

So Walmart shouldn't have been held responsible when their driver fell asleep behind the wheel and ran into Tracy Morgan's bus killing people and putting him in a coma? Pretty sure it's not in Walmarts policy to do that.

And the airlines that had pilots go crazy and fly until they ran out of fuel a few years ago are not responsible to their customers either?

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by unclebilly

And the airlines that had pilots go crazy and fly until they ran out of fuel a few years ago are not responsible to their customers either?

So, you skipped right past my answer to biosurfer1's post and have done nothing more than add to the absurdity of his exaggerated example.

Can you answer the questions I raised in reply to his post?

[Shaun @ Tru6]

[WPOZZZ]

Originally Posted by Shaun @ Tru6

How is it? We don't have them yet.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by WPOZZZ

How is it? We don't have them yet.

From the Marketing 101 thread about this sandwich:

I finally was able to get a spicy chicken sandwich. I would rate it as the best value fast food sandwich known to man. At $3.99, you get a big piece of chicken, cooked perfectly, very juicy and real crispy shell. Brioche bun is nice. I got mine with extra sauce and extra pickles and it was perfect. The pickles are critical as they give you a little acid in an ocean of fat and carbs.

I've had plenty of Chick fil A sandiches but never a spicy one so I can't say if one is better than the other. Love a CFA sandwich with their avocado salad dressing.

[Joe Bob]

Chicken w/o pepper sucks donkey balls....

[john70t]

Originally Posted by stevej37

In the video, after she gets body-slammed, two of the employees are seen throwing their hands up and heading back inside. Not sure what else they could have done..but it looked like they were not too concerned about the womans well-being.

Watch the video again:
-Three Popeye's employees follow her outside.
-One punches her twice. A female.
-One picks her up and slams her on the concrete.
-The third make a double-punch 'yeah' and turns around to the others following with a double-fisted 'yeah we did it' touchdown salute.
-A short employee then circles and makes a motion like he's going to punch her as well.

So at least four black employees attack the white customer.
Like I said, racist mob attack.
If the roles were reversed.....?

I didn't see any non-black employees there in that video.
Companies are usually held liable for maintaining hostile work environments.
What kind of background screening and training did the company use?
Was this the first incident of violence/strife/discrimination or did it just magically appear out of thin air?

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by john70t

Watch the video again:
-Three Popeye's employees follow her outside.
-One punches her twice. A female.
-One picks her up and slams her on the concrete.
-The third make a double-punch 'yeah' and turns around to the others following with a double-fisted 'yeah we did it' touchdown salute.
-A short employee then circles and makes a motion like he's going to punch her as well.

So at least four black employees attack the white customer.
Like I said, racist mob attack.
If the roles were reversed.....?

I didn't see any non-black employees there in that video.
Companies are usually held liable for maintaining hostile work environments.
What kind of background screening and training did the company use?
Was this the first incident of violence/strife/discrimination or did it just magically appear out of thin air?

Finally, someone asking the right questions and not just blindly chanting "Popeye's will pay!".

If, indeed, these same employees had displayed this behavior (at any level, even far short of this) in the past and Popeye's ignored it, now they start to look a bit more liable. If, however, this was the very first time any of those employees had even hinted at this kind of behavior, if this came out of the clear blue sky, I cannot see where Popeye's is liable.

As far as employee screening, the little I know about it I have learned through my wife. As the nursing supervisor for a very successful multi-office asthma and allergy practice, she had hiring authority and responsibility for all of the "nursing" staff, from MA's to LPN's to RN's. She was constantly expressing her frustration over what she was legally barred from asking former employers about prospective hires. This whole process has become horribly restricted, legally, rendering well neigh impossible to very thoroughly screen a new employee.

The only way Popeye's would be able to screen for this kind of violent tendency would be to check criminal records. I would be surprised if any of these thugs had priors, so they simply would not "pop" under that limited level of screening.

At least this discussion is now going somewhere. As far as the rest of you, I'm still waiting to see if any of you can answer my questions:

So, those of you touting Popeye's responsibility for this are, by insinuation, asserting that Popeye's was negligent in preventing this man from attacking this woman. You are asserting that Popeye's failed to do something. Please, then, explain what that "something" might be. Something tangible - some area in which Popeye's clearly failed. Something you would put in place, in your own business, to prevent an employee from doing something similar.

[flatbutt]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

As far as the rest of you, I'm still waiting to see if any of you can answer my questions:

So, those of you touting Popeye's responsibility for this are, by insinuation, asserting that Popeye's was negligent in preventing this man from attacking this woman. You are asserting that Popeye's failed to do something. Please, then, explain what that "something" might be. Something tangible - some area in which Popeye's clearly failed. Something you would put in place, in your own business, to prevent an employee from doing something similar.

If the corporation requires employees to go through training which addresses issues like this then they are probably in the clear. If they don't offer training, or have a policy that states such behavior is unacceptable and will not be tolerated then a good lawyer could make a case for some sort of negligence.

So without knowing if the training is in place one can't say whether or not they are liable. Not responsible, but liable.

[Joe Bob]

I'm retired now....pension, SS and work part time at Homey Doe. They put me thru 24 hours of video on customer relations less than 4 hours on sawas, forklifts and semi trailer operation.

The bottom line? IMHO

Refund the customer and write it off.

Popeye's corp will pay thru the nose and fund a HUGE training program. The body slammer will be LUCKY if his employer gets him a lawyer. Big boy is going to jail where there are bigger boys.

On the the other side of the coin.....Whitey shouldn't be goin' there anyways....ain't their 'hood....ain't their food. That's what KFC is for.....

[masraum]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

That is not what I said at all. You either misunderstood, or are intentionally exaggerating.



If the driver fell asleep because Walmart had him on the road too long, had him working back to back shifts with too little rest, then yes - they share liability. If it were truly something Walmart had done that caused him to nod off, then absolutely, they would be liable.

If, on the other hand, the driver was up too late partying, had through his own actions deprived himself of sleep, why would Walmart be liable? If the guy had health issues that he kept from Walmart, why would they be liable?

This whole notion that an employer is "liable" for the aberrant deeds of each and every employee (at least while they are on the clock) has got to stop. I know Americans love to sue, and it is pretty fruitless to sue some low level employee with no assets. Far more profitable to sue the employer, who had absolutely no control over, had absolutely nothing to do with the crime committed.

So, those of you touting Popeye's responsibility for this are, by insinuation, asserting that Popeye's was negligent in preventing this man from attacking this woman. You are asserting that Popeye's failed to do something. Please, then, explain what that "something" might be. Something tangible - some area in which Popeye's clearly failed. Something you would put in place, in your own business, to prevent an employee from doing something similar.

How it should be and how it is in practice are two very different things.

[look 171]

A huge part of me want to agree with Higgins, but why is it that the word Cracker was never mentioned and that's OK for them to use toward a white person? Its that fooking BS? Now, why is the police dept or city has to pay out a huge amount of the hard earned tax payer's money for their officer's misbehavior yet, many of us here feel the officer should pay that amount and have their pensions taken away, jail time aside.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by flatbutt

If the corporation requires employees to go through training which addresses issues like this then they are probably in the clear. If they don't offer training, or have a policy that states such behavior is unacceptable and will not be tolerated then a good lawyer could make a case for some sort of negligence.

So without knowing if the training is in place one can't say whether or not they are liable. Not responsible, but liable.

While I think we can agree that is a bit of a stretch, at least we are having a conversation now.

The reason I characterize this as a "bit of a stretch" is that I'm not entirely sure any employer has to offer specific training that teaches that it is not o.k. to beat the hell out of customers. I'm pretty sure that goes without saying under any circumstances. In other words, if Popeye's somehow failed to mention that beating the hell out of customers is unacceptable, I believe that much could be argued to be pretty much inferred.

Originally Posted by masraum

How it should be and how it is in practice are two very different things.

I get that. What I'm getting at is that Popeye's should fight this all the way. They are not liable for these employees' actions, and should not be held liable. This whole situation, along with so many on this forum claiming that of course Popeye's is liable - yet absolutely at a loss as to explain why - is, to me, just another clear indication of what has gone so terribly wrong with our Tort laws. They are desperately in need of reform.

[Tobra]

They will fight it all the way, until they settle.


This guy was acting as the agent of Popeye's in his capacity as the manager. They are not responsible for his every action, but they are certainly going to be found liable for the damages he caused.

Right and wrong don't enter into it.

[unclebilly]

Higgins - you are out to lunch on this.

The business has to offer a safe experience for their customers.

The only way out, (and likely not a get out of jail free card), is if they had signage that it wasn’t safe for little old white ladies to go there and made customers sign a waiver due to inherent risks with their employees inability to control their tempers.

Think of it like a shark dive charter. The customers understand the risks and sign a waiver. In this case, it’s absurd to think you might get the sheeet kicked out of you by the staff at a fast food restaurant and that’s ok...

No judge or jury will side with Popeyes not bearing responsibility on this one. They failed to offer a safe experience for their customer and in fact did just the opposite.

[Alan A]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

That is where Popeye's responsibilities end. When Mr. Hughs took it upon himself to attack this woman, that became entirely his responsibility, not his employer's. It does not make it their responsibility simply because he was wearing their uniform or under their employment at the time.

Tell that to Walmart the next time an employee unlawfully detains a person who refuses to show a receipt. They may hire you as a lawyer.

[fintstone]

One more reason for old ladies to concealed carry.