Quote:
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.