Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Starbucks ordered to pay customer €12,000 because of drawing on cup

Options
12467…11

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Akesh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 315 ✭✭Akesh


    Overheal wrote: »
    Starbucks can make that much money every minute, and more. And the barista reportedly still was retained and retrained. So it seems like nobody is worse for wear as a result of the settlement and the amount.

    That's not how it works. Starbucks have insurance. The insurance company will pay the majority/all of the costs and the consumer is worse off thanks to compensation culture.


  • Options
    #93
    lawred2
    Registered Users Posts: 24,267 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    No doubt its a racist & insulting thing to do & I agree that the business should be fined but giving 12k to the victim is nuts.

    Why? Who else do you think should receive it?


  • Options
    #94
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    I think it's in proportion to the depth of starbucks's pockets rather than the upset of the girl.
    HBC08 wrote: »
    Why would the woman or anybody in future accept an apology or a voucher when they know there are big bucks (intended) to be made?
    My name is URL wrote: »
    Multi-billion dollar tax-dodging company get's a tiny slap on wrist and people are outraged just because there was a racial element to it

    These are the types of posts that sum up the compo-culture attitude this country is laced with. The size of the corporation should not come into the amount awarded, whether it's a sole-trading corner coffee shop or a multi-billion dollar giant.

    People are all too quick to choose to be offended if they think there's money to be made. Not saying that was the case in this event but she was offered a sincere apology by the manager and offered vouchers, but she refused. Why, we'll never know for sure, but imo she or the boyfriend saw the €€€ and said let's try to latte this for as much as we can get.

    East Asian people have slanty eyes. Africans have big lips. Irish have pinky skin, freckles, red hair. These are harmless sterotypes. It's not like they're being beaten to death with a club.


  • Options
    #95
    lawred2
    Registered Users Posts: 24,267 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    Jaysus


  • Options
    #96
    Quantum Erasure
    Registered Users Posts: 8,162 ✭✭✭Quantum Erasure


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    No doubt its a racist & insulting thing to do & I agree that the business should be fined but giving 12k to the victim is nuts.

    Did we get a picture of the offending cup? If it was just a smiley face with lines for eyes, i don't really see how its 'racist', as such. Altough everything is racist these days


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,549 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    In 2021, just how thick does somebody need to be to not see the potential problems with such a drawing?


  • Options
    #98
    Quantum Erasure
    Registered Users Posts: 8,162 ✭✭✭Quantum Erasure


    lawred2 wrote: »
    Why? Who else do you think should receive it?

    ......

    .....

    ...

    ?


  • Options
    #99
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Bobblehats wrote: »
    Yea what happened there did she forget it?

    From the article online at Independant.ie

    He stated: “Instead of her name, a physical descriptor was used, in this case her eyes. This was not a drawing of the complainant, but a sketch of one part of her and one clearly associated with race.”

    Ms Baneham stated that Ms Foley, while making her order, began to spell out her name and was interrupted by the employee, who improvised a physical representation of Ms Foley who did not ask for this.

    Mr Baneham found that the employee did not intend to harass Ms Foley but it is clear that the drawing “had a degrading and humiliating effect” on Ms Foley.

    Interrupting her, then drawing her instead, was rude. I can see why the woman was offended. I think its a good ruling, all things considered. It shouldn't have happened.


  • Options
    #100
    lawred2
    Registered Users Posts: 24,267 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    Quantum Erasure wrote: »
    ......

    .....

    ...

    ?

    ......

    .....

    ...

    ?


  • Options
    #101
    lawred2
    Registered Users Posts: 24,267 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    From the article online at Independant.ie

    He stated: “Instead of her name, a physical descriptor was used, in this case her eyes. This was not a drawing of the complainant, but a sketch of one part of her and one clearly associated with race.”

    Ms Baneham stated that Ms Foley, while making her order, began to spell out her name and was interrupted by the employee, who improvised a physical representation of Ms Foley who did not ask for this.

    Mr Baneham found that the employee did not intend to harass Ms Foley but it is clear that the drawing “had a degrading and humiliating effect” on Ms Foley.

    Interrupting her, then drawing her instead, was rude. I can see why the woman was offended. I think its a good ruling, all things considered. It shouldn't have happened.

    Nah it's grand. At least she wasn't beat with a club.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Quantum Erasure
    Registered Users Posts: 8,162 ✭✭✭Quantum Erasure


    gmisk wrote: »
    Tbh I am intrigued to see what was drawn on the cup.
    It seems like a huge amount of money

    ㋡


  • Options
    #103
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Deleted User wrote: »
    From the article online at Independant.ie

    He stated: “Instead of her name, a physical descriptor was used, in this case her eyes. This was not a drawing of the complainant, but a sketch of one part of her and one clearly associated with race.”

    Ms Baneham stated that Ms Foley, while making her order, began to spell out her name and was interrupted by the employee, who improvised a physical representation of Ms Foley who did not ask for this.

    Mr Baneham found that the employee did not intend to harass Ms Foley but it is clear that the drawing “had a degrading and humiliating effect” on Ms Foley.

    Interrupting her, then drawing her instead, was rude. I can see why the woman was offended. I think its a good ruling, all things considered. It shouldn't have happened.

    And an apology and gesture would have sufficed, which is exactly what was offered, but she refused. You really think 12K is a reasonable outcome? This will set the scene for many more such claims, clogging up the courts from putting away some actual criminals.


  • Options
    #104
    Northernlily
    Registered Users Posts: 2,578 ✭✭✭Northernlily


    Gaoth Laidir wrote: »
    It just gets better and better. Now Starbucks was ordered to pay a customer of Thai origin €12,000 because they drew "slanty eyes" on her cup instead of writing her name. She was offended.

    Ok, they should have written her name but really? €12,000 for that? More compo culture Ireland at play.

    https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0119/1190689-starbucks-ordered-to-pay-compensation/

    Justified for once in my opinion. No one will be pulling that nonsense again soon you would hope.


  • Options
    #105
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Quantum Erasure wrote: »
    ㋡

    That's the Japanese katakana character "Shi" and you have offended all Japanese with your outrageous racial attack.


  • Options
    #106
    Bobblehats
    Registered Users Posts: 4,707 ✭✭✭Bobblehats


    Kailyn Elegant Bicyclist wrote: »
    Why is having slanty eyes the same as being overweight. That's quite an insulting comparison. Almond shaped eyes are a perfectly normal and attractive physical feature.

    Truth, people pay through the teeth for an eyelift. Same way they pay to rid themselves of that fat


  • Options
    #107
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 16,878 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    lawred2 wrote:
    Why? Who else do you think should receive it?


    As I said above 12k is far too much for her in compensation. In an ideal world she would have gotten much less & Starbucks fined heavily


  • Options
    #108
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,628 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Akesh wrote: »
    That's not how it works. Starbucks have insurance. The insurance company will pay the majority/all of the costs and the consumer is worse off thanks to compensation culture.

    Except that starbucks pays the premium which also increases as claims increase.


  • Options
    #109
    lawred2
    Registered Users Posts: 24,267 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    Gaoth Laidir wrote: »
    And an apology and gesture would have sufficed, which is exactly what was offered, but she refused. You really think 12K is a reasonable outcome? This will set the scene for many more such claims, clogging up the courts from putting away some actual criminals.

    If it was a private matter then yes.. Maybe an apology would suffice.

    This wasn't a private matter. It was an interaction between a representative of a large multi national and the public.

    It's not remotely comparable.

    Separately, what gives you the authority to decide what would have sufficed?


  • Options
    #110
    Quantum Erasure
    Registered Users Posts: 8,162 ✭✭✭Quantum Erasure


    Deleted User wrote: »
    From the article online at Independant.ie

    He stated: “Instead of her name, a physical descriptor was used, in this case her eyes. This was not a drawing of the complainant, but a sketch of one part of her and one clearly associated with race.”

    Ms Baneham stated that Ms Foley, while making her order, began to spell out her name and was interrupted by the employee, who improvised a physical representation of Ms Foley who did not ask for this.

    Mr Baneham found that the employee did not intend to harass Ms Foley but it is clear that the drawing “had a degrading and humiliating effect” on Ms Foley.

    Interrupting her, then drawing her instead, was rude. I can see why the woman was offended. I think its a good ruling, all things considered. It shouldn't have happened.

    Suchavadee Foley

    Suchavadee ...


    tenor.gif


  • Options
    #111
    lawred2
    Registered Users Posts: 24,267 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    As I said above 12k is far too much for her in compensation. In an ideal world she would have gotten much less & Starbucks fined heavily

    Fined? By who? The state?

    That's not how civil law works.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,628 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Gaoth Laidir wrote: »
    And an apology and gesture would have sufficed, which is exactly what was offered, but she refused. You really think 12K is a reasonable outcome? This will set the scene for many more such claims, clogging up the courts from putting away some actual criminals.

    It was a civil case, not a criminal one.

    Youtried.gif


  • Options
    #113
    skinny90
    Registered Users Posts: 2,466 ✭✭✭skinny90


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    As I said above 12k is far too much for her in compensation. In an ideal world she would have gotten much less & Starbucks fined heavily

    There’s loads to consider, the law doesn’t state if your racist to a consumer you get fined a fixed charge of 12K. The way that Starbucks set out to defend this actually shocking more shocking then the sum.


  • Options
    #114
    Darc19
    Registered Users Posts: 3,817 ✭✭✭Darc19


    BRYAN Is Ainm Dom wrote: »
    Good to see you are more outraged at the compensation rather than racist behavior of ****bucks.

    Very obvious that you couldn't be arsed to read the article.

    When people make judgements based on just a headline, they normally find that they are shown to be rather foolish.


  • Options
    #115
    Darc19
    Registered Users Posts: 3,817 ✭✭✭Darc19


    lawred2 wrote: »
    It was an interaction between a representative of a large multi national and the public.

    Starbucks is a franchise here. Owned and operated by a 100% irish owned company.


  • Options
    #116
    crossman47
    Registered Users Posts: 1,496 ✭✭✭crossman47


    Mitch Connor wrote: »
    a representative of starbucks was racist to a customer.

    and the customer got a ruling against the starbucks as a result.

    Don't see the issue here, at all. I'm surprised it wasn't more.

    I'm surprised it wasn't less. Should have just been a slap on the wrist for mildly racist behaviour.


  • Options
    #117
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    lawred2 wrote: »
    If it was a private matter then yes.. Maybe an apology would suffice.

    This wasn't a private matter. It was an interaction between a representative of a large multi national and the public.

    It's not remotely comparable.

    Separately, what gives you the authority to decide what would have sufficed?

    Again, what does the size of the company matter?

    And I have no more authority to decide what would suffice than you or anyone else who is saying the 12K was either the right amount or was too much. I am voicing an opinion, just like everyone else.


  • Options
    #118
    lawred2
    Registered Users Posts: 24,267 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    Darc19 wrote: »
    Starbucks is a franchise here. Owned and operated by a 100% irish owned company.

    Trading on a global brand.


  • Options
    #119
    Akesh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 315 ✭✭Akesh


    Overheal wrote: »
    Except that starbucks pays the premium which also increases as claims increase.

    Your argument was nobody was worse for wear which is not true. While Starbucks' premium will increase due to the claim, that claim along with many others add risk for insurers and will increase costs.

    Claims like these are killing small businesses.


  • Options
    #120
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Gaoth Laidir wrote: »
    And an apology and gesture would have sufficed, which is exactly what was offered, but she refused. You really think 12K is a reasonable outcome? This will set the scene for many more such claims, clogging up the courts from putting away some actual criminals.

    Are criminal trials even proscecuted in the WRC?

    All I'm saying is, I can understand why the woman felt upset.

    Would I have taken it as far as the WRC? Most likely not, but I wasn't there. Maybe this lady has been putting up with crap like this all her life, and finally hit her limit.

    I hope she enjoys the award.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 16,878 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    Quantum Erasure wrote:
    Did we get a picture of the offending cup? If it was just a smiley face with lines for eyes, i don't really see how its 'racist', as such. Altough everything is racist these days


    Ah Jasus. And the winner of the most foolish comment so far goes to QE.

    See this is the type of post you get when commenting without read the article. "slanty eyes" were drawn on the cup. The manager accepted this was the case immediately. It was described as Slanty eyes in the hearing and this wasn't disputed by either side. You weren't there & you didn't read the article properly but you are brave enough to state that it was just lines for eyes.

    It's a crazy rock and roll world we live in


Advertisement