Starbucks ordered to pay extra $2.7M to employee who said she was fired for being white
Starbucks ordered to pay extra $2.7M to employee who said she was fired for being white
A New Jersey federal judge has ordered Starbucks to pay a former employee who was awarded $25.6 million in a wrongful termination suit an extra $2.7 million in damages.
A jury previously awarded Shannon Phillips $25.6 million.
You're viewing a single thread.
Race or not, how does a wrongful termination cause $28.3mio in damages?
I very much doubt that this employee ever would have earned that money at Starbucks, had she not been wrongfully terminated.
At the same time, the two men who were arrested for existing and for being black received a whopping $1 each.
A lot of the time these things include fines to teach them a lesson. Otherwise corporations would do this way more.
Ok, but why does the person who got fired get the difference?
At least over here, if you have something like this, the person who got fired would get adequate damages rewarded (roughly the amount of money they lost due to being fired wrongfully) while the state would sue the company for a punitory fine.
Good question! I'm not sure. Maybe we are worried that punitive damage fines would incentivize the government to start suing businesses. Just a guess though.
A lot of the time these things include fines to teach them a lesson. Otherwise corporations would do this way more.
Which is a useless tactic for cops since it's taxpayers who pay anyhow. Still think settlements should be higher though. When half your city budget becomes paying for police settlements maybe then police reform will have a wider appeal.
What does fining corpos have to do with cops? These are 2 separate discussions.
What does fining corpos have to do with cops? These are 2 separate discussions.
Well, time to see how deep kbin will let me nest quotes.
Race or not, how does a wrongful termination cause $28.3mio in damages?
At the same time, the two men who were arrested for existing and for being black received a whopping $1 each.A lot of the time these things include fines to teach them a lesson. Otherwise corporations would do this way more.
Which is a useless tactic for cops since it's taxpayers who pay anyhow. Still think settlements should be higher though.
When half your city budget becomes paying for police settlements maybe then police reform will have a wider appeal.
What does fining corpos have to do with cops? These are 2 separate discussions.
Conversations wander.
In this case, someone asked, (paraphrasing) "How does it make sense to get millions for a race related firing and a dollar for race related wrongful arrest" <-- Note here that arrests are generally done by cops.
Then someone else said, (paraphrasing) "Well, they do these big settlements to teach companies a lesson."
Then I said, (paraphrasing) "Would be great if they could do that when cops wreck people's lives, but then it would only be taxpayers footing the bill anyhow."
Then you said, (paraphrasing) "Why are you changing the topic?"
Then I summarized, just now, to explain how I'm doing no such thing.
I realize I just restated what was already there, but -- it was already there when you asked, so....
What a long winded non answer.
It answered it fine, and was on topic with an easy to follow chain of thought.
It did not answer my question. What does cops have to do in regards to the topic at hand, which is about dining corpos. Rewording the comment chain does not answer that question.
It was directly compared to the "damages" given to two black men being racially discriminated against.
Where? Unless I missed a comment, the OC was about taxpayers paying for cops settlements in general when the topic at hand was about how corporations are fined. And I say again, those are 2 separate discussions.
Dude fell for a strawman and just wont admit they're wrong.
I literally quoted and paraphrased every single comment that led to the comparison, every single one of which are still visible, and were visible when you asked. If I go back and link them for you will it help?
I literally quoted every comment showing how the comparison was drawn, then paraphrased them. All those comments are still here, right now.
And despite calling my comment longwinded, you apparently didn't actually read or comprehend any of it?
Would you like me to edit it to add links to each of those comments in progression?
It's not on topic. It's a strawman.
I think your comment was on topic.
It really wasn't on topic. It's a strawman argument.
Thanks!
Disclaimer that I have not followed this case and I'm not a lawyer.
In the US civil cases can have both compensatory and punitive damages. Compensatory is meant to "right the wrong" where you get reimbursed for financial losses, lost time, things you had to pay for as a result of the incident, etc. Punitive is meant to punish the offender if the case finds they acted with some negligence, and ultimately get them and others to change their behavior.
Take the infamous McDonald's coffee case. The woman who was injured originally only asked for McDonald's to pay for her medical treatment. She required skin grafts. The jury found that McDonald's knowing let this circumstance exist where someone was going to get a serious injury and added on punitive damages. Which the judge cut back.
An important caveat is that she was not the first person seriously injured by the temperatures they were keeping the coffee at.
McD decided the money they were saving on free coffee refills was more important than injuring their customers, which is why the punitive damages were awarded.
The lady who got the money was just the one a judge actually paid attention to.
Somewhat paid attention. The jury awarded two days of coffee revenue. The judge cut it to 3x the compensatory damages, about a half day of coffee revenue. I don't recall if there was a law on the books about that. Some states have "tort reform" laws that limit punitive damages.
As an European, it's kinda strange to me that the punitory damages are awarded to the person in question, for two reasons.
- Punitory damages aren't meant to protect that one person (it's highly unlikely that Starbucks is going to wrongfully fire the same woman a second time) but instead they are meant to protect society
- Punitory lawsuits should not depend on the legal budget of one individual
The way it works over here is like this:
There would be two lawsuits:
- The regular civil lawsuit between the wronged person and the company. The result will be compensatory measures awarded to the wronged person.
- The chamber of labour will run a separate lawsuit regarding law violations/structural issues of the company. The result will be a change in the company and punitory measures. If these include fees, they are awarded to the government.
Well that sounds like socialism! /s
I happen to be one of those Americans that think despite their many flaws, the authors of the Constitution had some fundamentally good ideas. And we used the Constitution as intended to expand individual rights after the Civil War with the 14th Amendment. Shamefully we never got around to the Equal Rights Amendment to include women.
What most Americans don't realize is that the vast majority of what we consider foundational principles are not actually in the Constitution but are instead case law, and how recent much of that is. It wasn't until 15 years after the Civil War that there was a Supreme Court case which established the idea that corporations are persons under the law and deserving of many of the rights granted under the Constitution using (or mis-using in my opinion) that same 14th Amendment.
Why does that matter? Because it gave corporations an "equal" seat at the table when it comes to disputes. The problem, as you point out, is that our civil dispute resolution system DOES depend on the resources of the "person" and corporations will ALWAYS have more resources. Lots and lots of cases have given corporations more rights and the result is the corportacracy we have now. In other words we went fundamentally the wrong direction diluting the power of the individual. And because corporations have such disproportionate influence on the laws and administrative procedures, we diluted the power of government to represent the people. This has been going on for ~120 years but it kicked into high gear in the 80s (Reagan era).
I'm glad that you guys are still somewhat rational about this, but unfortunately the anti-democratic trend in the US is replicating in the rest of the world. I worry that future histories will compare the rise of this garbage in the US to the start of fascism in Italy in the 1930s.
Sorry, went off on a tangent deep in the comments, but I spend too much time thinking and worrying.
From the patterns I see in the world, social structures (governments, organisations, ...) are mostly on a downward trend. People in power are mostly concerned with keeping and extending their power, to the detriment of the people they are ruling.
Until it goes to far and there is a crisis so massive, that the people who are in power get swapped out and replaced by a completely different set of people. Then they spend a few years improving the situation until business as usual sets in and the downward trend sets in again.
You can see that e.g. in the founding of America, the time after the US civil war, the time after WW2 in most of Europe and in many other instances. Newly formed countries often take that chance to improve their constitution and government principles.
The thing is, contrary to e.g. Europe, the USA hasn't had a reset like this in a very long time. Hence, corruption is handled almost as if the constitution prescribed it. Compare e.g. how funding for the election campaign of presidential candidates is handled.
In my country, candidates are severely limited in how much they can totally spend on the campaign. The current limit is at €7mio. They have to declare all donations to parties, which are also limited.
In the USA, on the other hand, there is hardly a point trying to become a candidate if you don't have a few billionaires backing you.
I can think of one difference...
"Damages" is more than lost wages. Not sure how that relates to arrests
Getting arrested, even wrongfully, is going to fuck a lot of peoples' lives up as much or more than getting fired. I have a special needs child, and although I'm not a single parent, cops pick me up and put me in jail wrongfully for a day or two, the details of my circumstances are such that's going to cause substantial trauma for both my child and my wife. In my case my job would be safe, but for a great many people it would not.
I'd take being fired over being arrested all day every day and twice on Sunday.
I don't mean to suggest she didn't have a case, only to suggest that payouts for wrongful police action need to be much higher. Aside from the arrest itself, wrongful arrests often include damages to the victim's body or property, possibly their dog getting shot, etc etc.
I don’t mean to suggest she didn’t have a case, only to suggest that payouts for wrongful police action need to be much higher. Aside from the arrest itself, wrongful arrests often include damages to the victim’s body or property, possibly their dog getting shot, etc etc.
Not even talking about the fact, that these guys now have newspaper articles with both of them in handcuffs, clearly showing their face and names that will come up every time a potential new employer googles their names.
Totally agree with you, wrongful arrest is much more problematic than being wrongfully fired.
Sure, but how do they arrive at $28.3 mio damages? You usually don't get that much in damages if the person in question has been killed. I'm pretty sure, being wrongfully fired doesn't cause as much damage as >16x of the average lifetime earnings of a person.