GA. man writes racial slur on receipt. MIXED COUPLE not happy.

[Danno 1,228]

EMPLOYEE FIRED FOR WHAT HE WROTE ON THIS COUPLE’S VALET PARKING STUB.

A valet parking attendant in Georgia has lost his job after an interracial couple got their parking stub back with the words “jungle fever” scribbled on it.

The note is an apparent reference to the 1991 Spike Lee film about an interracial romance.Kandea and Samuel Aarons stopped on their way to Atlanta to have dinner at Spondivits restaurant in East Point, WAGA-TV reported.

They parked their car and said the attendant was very polite.

But it wasn’t until they got home that they noticed the note on their parking stub.

“To me those words were racially motivated,” Kandea Aarons said.

“I was upset but I was mainly disappointed. Disappointed that this is still taking place today. 2014. Especially in the big city of Atlanta,” Samuel Aarons added.

The couple took their complaint to the restaurant and the restaurant took the complaint to the parking company.

Management at the valet parking company identified the employee behind the note, a black man, and fired him after he admitted to scribbling the words on the ticket, WAGA reported.

Despite the restaurant’s attempt to smooth things over with the Aarons by apologizing and offering them gift certificates, the couple is reportedly considering legal action with their attorney.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/03/employee-fired-for-what-he-wrote-on-this-couples-valet-parking-stub/

[Pooky 3,807]

They identified the culprit and took suitable action. Good.

Should be case closed.

Now the couple and their lawyer are considering legal action? Way to lose sympathy, guys.

[luckytxn 2,264]

For sure. Firing someone is a pretty good way to get even so get over it and go away.

They identified the culprit and took suitable action. Good.

Should be case closed.

Now the couple and their lawyer are considering legal action? Way to lose sympathy, guys.

[Danno 1,228]

IN a normal world such a suite would be a waste of time.

-What are the damages?

-What roll did the owner play?

-Could the owner have reasonably prevented his worker from scribbling the note?

With race cases they might find some civili rights angle to cash in which would be kinda funny. Headline: Black worker slurs Mixed couple, White owner sued.

[Neonred 3,575]

$$ Someome thinks they just hit the lottery. $$

[Sarah Elle-Même 660]

IN a normal world such a suite would be a waste of time.

-What are the damages?

-What roll did the owner play?

-Could the owner have reasonably prevented his worker from scribbling the note?

With race cases they might find some civili rights angle to cash in which would be kinda funny. Headline: Black worker slurs Mixed couple, White owner sued.

I guess you posted this past your bedtime, what with all the spelling errors.

The employee was racist and insensitive. He was fired. Case closed. No legal action to be taken but lawyers seem real desperate these days what with their crushing student loan debt.

[Danno 1,228]

I guess you posted this past your bedtime, what with all the spelling errors.

Thanks for your observation.

I am sorely lacking in the spelling dept. But what is really screwing me over is my upgrade to the latest Mac OS. (Which is now free)

The spell check auto changes words and so I need to check into it to see if I can adjust it. Before is simply underlined the questionable word.

For some reason on this website it works differently, ....the problem seems worse, maybe I need to check my setting here.

Make no mistake, I NEED a good spell check program.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If you don't like the culture of litigation, maybe it's time to regulate it...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If you don't like the culture of litigation, maybe it's time to regulate it...

But I thought regulation is evil?

[Danno 1,228]

If you don't like the culture of litigation, maybe it's time to regulate it...

It already is regulated as is the baking of bread.

As I said in a normal legal sense, they have no case, the down side of Civil rights legislation is it has opened a pandoras box of "special laws."

In my normal world view (or so I think)...

These folks would have been rightly offended and understood the boss took the corrective steps, accepted the free meals and a friendship could have been formed.

Or she could decide that, to return to the place would only be unpleasant and instead not to ever return.

Lets suppose the couple were fat (or the wife was) and the valet instead wrote "Weight-watchers" on their ticket..... might that not have been as hurtful?

Why no special protection for them or for the short man or for the Ugly lady?

Look the path to build a perfect world is paved with innocent victims and in the end we are more divided.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It already is regulated as is the baking of bread.

As I said in a normal legal sense, they have no case, the down side of Civil rights legislation is it has opened a pandoras box of "special laws."

In my normal world view (or so I think)...

These folks would have been rightly offended and understood the boss took the corrective steps, accepted the free meals and a friendship could have been formed.

Or she could decide that, to return to the place would only be unpleasant and instead not to ever return.

Lets suppose the couple were fat (or the wife was) and the valet instead wrote "Weight-watchers" on their ticket..... might that not have been as hurtful?

Why no special protection for them or for the short man or for the Ugly lady?

Look the path to build a perfect world is paved with innocent victims and in the end we are more divided.

All of this is very interesting but these people have a right to sue, regardless of whether anyone agrees with it or not, regardless of whether the case has merit or not.

Personally, I wouldn't do it. But there you are.

Edited January 5, 2014 by Papa Lazarou

[Danno 1,228]

All of this is very interesting but these people have a right to sue, regardless of whether anyone agrees with it or not, regardless of whether the case has merit or not.

Personally, I wouldn't do it. But there you are.

Your use of the word "right" is unclear.

I can bring suite against you for calling me a name on VJ.... do I have a right to bring a frivolous suite?

IN this case, she might well have a "right" to bring suite...... simply because she is Black.

The odd part is, the Black guy who offended her would not suffer as he has nothing, the presumably white owner would pay.

To throw another wrench into it, lets suppose the owner is black (a real possibility)

Wouldn't that be cool to have a Black lady sue a Black businessmen because a Black employee racially offended her?

It's a shame the husband can't get some action too (sorry dude, wrong color).

We are going to need an up date on this.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Really - I thought it was very clear. Entitled (by the law) to hire a lawyer and bring a lawsuit. The lawyer doesn't have to take the case, and the case doesn't have to have merit.

As I said, maybe it's time to regulate.

[Danno 1,228]

Really - I thought it was very clear. Entitled (by the law) to hire a lawyer and bring a lawsuit. The lawyer doesn't have to take the case, and the case doesn't have to have merit.

As I said, maybe it's time to regulate.

"Entitled" and Right are two different things.... remember -Words mean things,

I keep going over this lesson.

As to your point, there is a charge in some jurisdictions against bringing frivolous suites.

I would not be too quick to "regulate" a minor problem (silly law suites).

In her case she might have ground and to remedy that would be nearly impossible. What law maker wants to vote for anything which places such a huge target on his back.

"Civil Rights" are politics, not law.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No Danno - in this context they have the exact same meaning.

1) They have the right, under the law to hire a lawyer to bring a lawsuit

2) They are entitled under the law to hire a lawyer to bring a lawsuit.

Feel free to explain how these two sentences mean different things.

Fine, maybe they will be charged for bringing a frivolous lawsuit. That doesn't change the fact that they have a right/are entitled to hire a lawyer to bring a lawsuit.