A jury of Americans concluded that discrimination laws are colorblind, and sent a powerful message to corporate America: There are 25 million reasons not to make decisions based upon the immutable characteristics of race. One GIANT step forward for civil rights in the Country. This was MLK’s dream… https://www.npr.org/2023/06/15/1182...illion-in-case-tied-to-arrests-of-2-black-men
That was about 1% of what MLK stood for. For some strange reason a certain group of people only mentions that 1% when they speak about MLK when he represented so much more
Maybe that’s because we are well past the 1960s. For some reason you libbies aren’t truthfully interested in treating all equally.
Using a quote that libbies are supposed to understand was the point. Why turn it in to something else?
Nah just messing with yah. Let's not derail another thread into LGBT. There's already 9000 other ones
I’d have no issue with this award if there was proof she was fired because she’s white. Like if some black employees escaped “punishment” at the store over this incident, and they just cleaned house of white employees. Something very blatant. Obviously if there’s a racial insensitivity incident, as was the original impetus for this whole sequence of events, then all employees need to be trained equally. But I don’t see any evidence of that anywhere, she was fired (as regional manager) because she objected to suspending the store manager where the issue took place. Even if that store manager was a sort of “sacrificial lamb”, isn’t that generally how things work? Maybe the article glosses over some piece of evidence (internal documents) that nailed the case, but it seems quite speculative.
So a white manager who was not involved in anyway with the incident and was beloved by the employees ( as stated by the black store manager) was fired as a “sacrificial lamb” so that a more experienced manager could be brought in to calm the situation Hard not see that the color of skin was a major role. Manager had done nothing wrong but the black community was upset and demanding changes so the white manager got axed. As far as the OP missing something… I’m guessing the jury.. who heard all the evidence must have missed the something as well. Luckily posters on this thread have more insight/knowledge/wisdom and can set everyone straight…
I didn’t miss anything that Bling cites as an excuse to question the validity of the jury. The jury would have been instructed on the law by the judge. The jury weighs the evidence. The racist defendant raised that argument to the jury (as noted in the media) and the jury rejected it. So, there appears there WAS proof to overcome that defense, besides the fact that the white victim had to PROVE the racial element or the Judge would has tossed the case in Summary Judgment or a directed verdict. The point is, Bling’s post is just a perpetuation of the false narrative that white people are not subject to racial discrimination. Oh, don’t think we didn’t noticed you didn’t question the racial element of the conduct directed at the black customers without the same scrutiny you levied on the white woman’s claim.
There is almost never going to be "proof" she was fired because she was white, especially at a corporation like Starbucks. The jury heard evidence that race was a factor in the decision to terminate her, and they found in her favor. I presume you can find the briefs online.
I’m not “skirting around” anything, I’m just basing on what the article says. Obviously I do not have the entirety of evidence that was presented to the jury, I’d just think if there was such “bombshell” evidence the article would have at least mentioned it. It is fair to point out it is also an assumption the reason the barista/employee called the cops in the first place was racially motivated. Of course the govt as far as I know didn’t bring a civil rights case against anyone, nor was that woman “sued” (probably because not much point, financially speaking). All that happened was she was fired, which is pretty damned obviously going to happen when an employee wrongfully calls the cops on customers or unnecessarily creates embarrassment - even without a race element. It was purely a “public outrage” that Starbucks settled entirely out of court with the two victims. To address the outage Starbucks also fired the manager. If I’m understanding, the manager was replaced by a black manager. Is that inherently racist? I don’t know. I’m just not seeing what a “regional manager” has to do with anything. If anything the store manager might have been more directly a victim of the situation as a “sacrificial lamb” - but again, at the end of the day when there’s public embarrassment the store manager is the most obvious scalp.
The plaintiff was replaced with a white manager. That was the actual defense of Starbucks. Their defense failed. Starbucks is racist, like their coffee.
If the plaintiff was actually replaced with a white manager, then it makes the racial discrimination claim and jury verdict seem even more absurd. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
