Popeyes employee in trouble!

[biosurfer1]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

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

.

That is what you said. You said anyone doing something outside a companies policy is no longer the responsibility of the company.

In your world companies could easily say any employee doing anything illegal is outside their policy and they are no longer responsible. You think Walmarts policy was for drivers to drive tired or overworked? Of course not, in fact their policy is very clear how much rest a driver should get. If that doesn't happen, doesn't mean the company is off the hook by simply pointing to the policy.

Someone under cooks the meat at Chipotle and kills a couple dozen with salmonella, in your world the company simply points to cooking policy saying to fully cook the meat and what, that means they are not responsible?

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by unclebilly

Higgins - you are out to lunch on this.

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

And they do, so long as their employees act in a manner approved by the company.

Originally Posted by unclebilly

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.

We all know that is patently absurd.

Originally Posted by unclebilly

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...

What a horribly absurd comparison. You are clearly grasping at straws to even suggest such a comparison. What a completely illogical line of reasoning, to try to somehow compare shark diving to getting a chicken sandwich.

Originally Posted by unclebilly

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.

You are still avoiding the questions I asked regarding this very issue, which is central to this situation. So, again, I ask:

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.

Originally Posted by Alan A

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.

If Walmart has indeed instructed their greeters to detain customers who refuse to show receipts, then Walmart is absolutely liable for that greeter's actions.

Popeye's, of course, very likely did not instruct employees to beat the hell out of customers demanding a refund. That would be my guess, anyway.

Certainly, you must see the difference.

Originally Posted by biosurfer1

That is what you said. You said anyone doing something outside a companies policy is no longer the responsibility of the company.

No, it was not. That is not at all what I said. Here is our exchange:

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Absolutely for real. No way on earth is a company responsible for the criminal behavior of an employee, unless it can be shown that employee was acting at the behest of the company. In this case, he clearly was not.

Originally Posted by biosurfer1

In your world companies could easily say any employee doing anything illegal is outside their policy and they are no longer responsible.

I said a company should not be held responsible for the criminal behavior of its employees.

Originally Posted by biosurfer1

You think Walmarts policy was for drivers to drive tired or overworked? Of course not, in fact their policy is very clear how much rest a driver should get. If that doesn't happen, doesn't mean the company is off the hook by simply pointing to the policy.

I said if Walmart was responsible for the driver's lack of rest, as is making him drive too much or too often, that they would be absolutely responsible. I likewise said that if the driver was personally responsible for his lack of rest, or had withheld a pertinent medical condition that led to his drowsiness, then it would be entirely his responsibility.

Originally Posted by biosurfer1

Someone under cooks the meat at Chipotle and kills a couple dozen with salmonella, in your world the company simply points to cooking policy saying to fully cook the meat and what, that means they are not responsible?

In this case, Chipotle's gave instructions to their cooks but failed to follow up with any sort of supervision, process controls, quality control, or anything at all to ensure that their instructions were being followed. So, yes, in their case, they are entirely liable.

You are very quick to tell me what I think, to tell me how things are in "my world". Yet it is abundantly clear you have not understood a word I have said. You are assigning positions to me that I do not hold - we call those "straw man" arguments. You are simply arguing with some persona of me which you have created for yourself.

So, let's follow your Chipotle's example, and answer my questions in that context. Chipotle's failed to ensure compliance with their stated processes. How, in this case, would Popeye's have ensured compliance to their company policy (stated or inferred) against beating the hell out of customers? And, once again, I ask you to answer the following:

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.

[biosurfer1]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

In this case, Chipotle's gave instructions to their cooks but failed to follow up with any sort of supervision, process controls, quality control, or anything at all to ensure that their instructions were being followed. So, yes, in their case, they are entirely liable.

It is in damn near every company handbook that physical violence is against company policy.

In this case, Popeye's gave instructions to not physically assault customers but failed to follow up with any sort of supervision (actually in this case, the "supervisor" joined in), process controls, quality control, or anything at all to ensure that their instructions were being followed. So yes, in their case, they are entirely liable.

Yes, let's follow my Chipotle example. You seem to imply that Chipotle would be liable for a worker doing something against policy, yet Popeye's is not because why? Break it down even more. In both examples, both employee's did something against company policy, both on duty as an employee and caused injury to customers, and yet you seem to think one is liable and one is not.

[john70t]

The fact of the matter is that four hired employees attacked this customer after committing fraud and racial intimidation.
Were they hired for that purpose?
Was the attack an attempt to cover up other crimes?

And there is no evidence to suggest that management acting as company representatives did anything to stop it. Either inside or outside.

In fact, there is no evidence to refute that store management did not itself direct the attack, after conferring directly with Popeye Corp's President.
Does Mr. Higgins have any proof otherwise?

[Tobra]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

You are very quick to tell me what I think, to tell me how things are in "my world". Yet it is abundantly clear you have not understood a word I have said. You are assigning positions to me that I do not hold - we call those "straw man" arguments. You are simply arguing with some persona of me which you have created for yourself.

Ironic that you say this, then do the very same thing in the same post, see below.

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

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.

Simple, don't hire violent thugs.

You are confusing how you think things ought to be with how they are. Companies are responsible for what their employees do at work, even if the employee violates company policy.

It is just that simple.

[unclebilly]

I’d be amazed if Popeyes did have a policy that explicitly said that Popeyes employees are strictly forbidden from physically assaulting customers.

It seems like a rule like this should be implied.

Maybe they had a rule like this at Boeing when Higgins worked there, hence his strange feelings on this matter... Who knows?

[look 171]

Originally Posted by Tobra

Ironic that you say this, then do the very same thing in the same post, see below.


Simple, don't hire violent thugs.

You are confusing how you think things ought to be with how they are. Companies are responsible for what their employees do at work, even if the employee violates company policy.

It is just that simple.

I have not read all of the threads but I get what he's saying and kinda agree w him.

I am sure corp. would never hire these thugs but you must remember, this maybe an area where crime is sky high and any available bodies are doing something else. Plus, the manager maybe one of the thug's friend or relatives making that manager part of the problem. Why is the corporation have to foot the bill for law breaking low lives? I agree with him on this, these laws need to have a tune up

[look 171]

I just thought of something. Maybe they can stage this and rip of the corporation? Manager hire thug and body slam white woman. Woman sues and wins; they all split the profit of millions. Why the hell not? Thus sits in jail for a couple months and get out and spends his money.

[Tobra]

I don't disagree that it is ridiculous, but that does not make it any less of a reality. Lawyers make all the rules and directly profit from the game.

[ckelly78z]

It sounds to me like the employee will be fired, and most likely brought up on charges to serve some time, while Popeyes WILL deliver a high dollar settlement to the victim as a "feel good", public relations move.

My BIL is a cop in South Florida that had to shoot an armed perp who was committing a felony, and shooting at him. He was completely justified, and no disciplinary action was taken, but the city still paid a seven figure "public relations" settlement to the criminal's family.

[KFC911]

Jackie Chiles has been wantin' $ome of that Popeye$ chicken for a long time

[Sooner or later]

Possible

Employer Liable for Employee Assault on Customer | Stay Informed | K&L Gates

In Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc, the Supreme Court decided that the employer was vicariously liable for an employee’s assault on a customer. Mr Mohamud, a man of Somali origin, went into a Morrisons supermarket that was attached to a petrol station and asked for some documents to be printed from his USB stick. Mr Khan, one of the staff members on duty, responded abusively using racist language. Mr Khan then followed Mr Mohamud out of the shop and into his car to tell him not to come back to the petrol station before physically attacking him. When Mr Mohamud got out of the car, Mr Khan continued attacking him, kicking and punching him on the ground. Mr Mohamud brought a personal injury claim against Morrisons claiming that it was vicariously liable for Mr Khan's acts. Mr Mohamud was unsuccessful in the High Court and Court of Appeal, but the Supreme Court decided that there was a sufficiently close connection between the assault and the employee's job of attending to customers, such that the employer should be vicariously liable for the actions of its employee.

The Supreme Court confirmed that the "close connection" test applied in previous cases was the right test. To apply the test to this case, it was necessary to first consider the nature of the employee's role which "must be addressed broadly". Secondly, the court must consider whether there is a sufficiently close connection between the employee's position and the wrongful act. The necessary connection could be found in cases where employees use or misuse their position of employment so that they injure the claimant.

In this case, the employee's job was to attend to customers, and whilst the assault was not within the scope of the employee's job, it happened in an unbroken series of events from when the claimant made a request of the employee. There was no "metaphoric removal of the uniform" just because the employee stepped out from behind the counter and by ordering the claimant to stay away from the employer's premises, he was appearing to act for his employer's business. Since the role of the employee was to serve customers, though he grossly abused his position, the employer was held vicariously responsible for the subsequent assault.

[ficke]

What happened to personal responsibility?
Jeff is morally correct.
but the reality we live in is Popeye's will get successfully sued.

[unclebilly]

A customer went to a business to conduct a transaction with the business.

A representative of the business made an error in the transaction.

When the customer asked the business to correct the error, a representative of the business brutally physically assaulted the customer.

I still can’t figure out how some of you don’t think The business, in this case Popeyes, is responsible for their representatives actions. I guess threads like this are what makes this forum interesting still. We’re all entitled to our opinions and ultimately the legal system will determine who is responsible to whom and for what.

[Bob Kontak]

Originally Posted by look 171

Thus sits in jail for a couple months and get out and spends his money.

I guess if three years is the minimum you can be paroled in 18 months? Don't know the law. However, older lady viciously broken into pieces ought to be a little steeper.

Class C Felonies

People convicted of class C felonies can be sentenced to prison terms of three to 15 years, as well as fines of up to $10,000. Aggravated assault (intentionally causing serious injury to another) is typically a class C felony in Tennessee. (Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-111 (2019).)

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/state-felony-laws/tennessee-felony-class.htm

[svandamme]

The use of the N word as a slur or insult against somebody is bad, sure it is.
But the response that word brings out from black people is disproportional and in itself racist.

When JayZee and Kanye bring out a song called n's in paris.. that's fine.
Snoop calls every one of his black buddies mah n. fine
Chris Rock , Dave Chapelle, their entire stand up routines are full of it.. that's fine.
When Kendrick Lamar uses it 10 times a minute in each of his songs, that's fine
When black people sing along with Kendrick, that's fine

When a white girl fan of Kendrick comes on stage, and sings his song along with him , all of the sudden all PC hell breaks loose on the poor girl who was just singing along with him.
The only difference being, the color of her skin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_-gn8Mm2xc


So basically everybody has come to accept that racism is ok, if it's black people on white people.
But it's not ok if it's white people on black people or any other non white.

And everybody thinks that's just fine and dandy.

Sure that old lady shouldn't have insulted anybody when she was not getting the service she thought she deserved.
And sure it was pretty stupid considering the time and place where she was, and the people who were there..

But the disproportionate response is all part of that reverse racism I just described.
Black people somehow can get away with racism , it's has come to a point where they somehow feel entitled to absurd responses whenever anybody non black uses the N word, regardless of context and intent to insult or not.


Just "usage + white person" = White person is out of order
same "usage + black person" = ok.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XileSvCFfVo

Dude just uses the word nigger as an example of something that's wrong. <<< yes I used the word. Yes I should be able to use it in this context. I did not mean to insult anybody.If somebody feels insulted by it, that's not something I can fix.
And get's flamed for it, when he's pointing out actual racism.

It's PC nonsense that is used as a way to be openly racist...
When black people think in that way, and fester those feelings, that's when you get such disproportionate responses..

Black people who think it's acceptable to discriminate the use of the word based on skin color are no different then white people, in the fifties,
who thought it was acceptable that black people had to sit in the back of the bus or had to go to different schools.

[Tobra]

Yes Stijn, that is the long and short of race in America, excellent post.

[svandamme]

It's not just in America, the same PC nonsense over that word happens in the UK as well.
Probably at a slightly reduced level, but still , the same kind of acceptable discrimination happens there as well.

And I'm sure we have white on black racism or white on brown racism in Europe as well.
But it will never get solved if the other side can't even admit they have issues as well.

[Jeff Higgins]

Right on, Stijn - that is the essence of the problem, at a "global" level. Black on white racism. It is, ultimately, what made these thugs feel "justified" in their response to this white woman.

It seems many here are conflating responsibilities carried out as proscribed by one's employment with what I would call, for the sake of this discussion, "extracurricular activities" - those activities not proscribed by the employer as a part of one's duties.

I agree that the employer is absolutely responsible in the case of the former when things go wrong. My assertion is that the employer is absolutely not responsible in the case of the latter.

I've asked several times now just what sort of "controls" an employer should have in place to effectively prevent this kind of an occurrence. No one has been able to answer, no one has been able to enumerate realistic, effective controls that a company can put in place to prevent this. There is a very simple reason for that that none of you can bring yourselves to admit - it's because there simply aren't any.

No one, no company, can control aberrations of human behavior such as we have seen in this case. It is simply impossible. As such, the responsibility to control one's self lies with the individual, not with the company. We have societal norms, expectations of behavior, that transcend one's employment - all too obvious things that do not have to be codified as "company policy" or anything like that.

So, again, those of you blaming Popeye's need to enumerate exactly what they should have had in place to prevent this. No generalities like "providing a safe place to eat", or "don't hire thugs" - those are concepts, or goals - not specific controls to achieve those goals. Some of you understand the difference. The rest of you will, of course, resort to hyperbole, false equivalencies, wild exaggerations, explaining to me what I really think, and maybe even an insult or two, as you have already. Save it - I'm not interested. Instead, tell us exactly what Popeye's (or McDonald's, or Burger King, or whoever) does from here to definitively, effectively, forever prevent a reoccurrence of this?

[masraum]

Now picture the ladies son (no idea, just a hypothetical) is waiting in the car in the parking lot with a CHL and witnesses the attack on his mom...