Yes, but the damages aren’t going to be much if it isn’t pervasive at the company or location.
Most injured parties really want money from the COMPANY rather than the minimum wage (or close to it) food service type employee who is the actor. To get money from the Business rather than the broke employee of course requires a lot more evidence.
^^^That’s not how it works.
My guess is that if Starbucks is willing to shut down every one of its stores for a training day, their attorneys would be well advised to make reasonable but generous monetary settlement offer to these two gentleman … rather than worry about a lawsuit. It’s not just a civil rights claim – it’s also a plain vanilla wrongful arrest claim, because there does not seem to be any basis whatsoever to support an arrest. (So NOT the same as someone creating a disturbance or accused of shoplifting). And and I think a custodial arrest that caused these men to be taken to local jail and kept there for hours is worthy of compensation. And I seriously doubt that Starbucks is going to let the thing get to the point of formal legal action.
Same deal for the city – there may or may not be a civil rights claim against the police officers who apparently placed cooperative men under arrest without making proper inquiry. In my state the law does not allow police to make arrests for misdemeanors without a warrant, unless the crime was committed in the officer’s presence. Pennsylvania law seems to be the same – https://caselaw.findlaw.com/pa-supreme-court/1169642.html Given that Starbucks is a business that is open to the public, the mere presence of the two men in Starbucks during normal business hours wouldn’t be evidence of a trespass - the police would need to also have witnessed the men being asked to leave. (And maybe that did happen and just wasn’t caught on video – but the city would probably save money in the long run by settling early on rather than digging in its heels on this one)
I’ve had experience with early “make this go away” type of settlements for police misconduct and it doesn’t result in megabucks for the wrongfully arrested – but it can definitely be enough to make everyone happy – bearing in mind that people of moderate financial means can often be very happy with dollar amounts that are trivial in the context of a city’s annual budget.
@Himom – Starbucks the company would be legally liable for the negligent, tortious conduct of an employee during the course of business. So a one-time incident can definitely be grounds for a lawsuit against the company.
But as noted… I have a feeling that Mr Johnson is going to make sure a check gets written without the need for a lawsuit. Starbucks has an advertising budget of $88 million annually. I think they will look at this particular problem through the lens of PR.
@yourmomma -I don’t think it’s polite to call those two guys “morons” for doing something that tons of people have done before. What a rush to judgement.
We know this because no white people were asked to leave the store. There must have been other people who didn’t order something. Why weren’t they asked to leave?
Actually it’s not “tons” of people. Otherwise Starbucks would be out of business. The vast majority, I would guess above 90% make purchases.
And as I maintained, everyone involved is a “moron” – employees and cops included. Now, no question the two guys have a legitimate beef. But there are many ways of handling it. No reason to get arrested in that situation – just leave when the police ask (which from one video it sounds like they did). That probably would have gotten just as much reaction from Starbucks.
10% of Starbucks customers is a lot of people! A typical Starbucks has around 500 customers a day, so that would mean an additional 50ish people who don’t buy. There are around 27000 Starbucks locations. So that would mean around 135,000 people every day go into Starbucks but don’t buy. In other words, a ton of people.
Your explanation of how black people and white observers ought to just suck up everyday racism is noted.
Really? I said no such thing. Just that it is stupid to get arrested in that situation.
It’s stupid to you, to get arrested in that situation. Perhaps those men felt that they had the right to question why the police were called. They knew they were waiting on a friend. The knew they hadn’t done anything wrong. It is still ok to question what the problem is and why they alone were being asked to leave. Maybe it meant enough to them to prove a point.
My daughter was there yesterday. She and a friend waited until their other 2 friends came. Then they ordered. Like they do every week. It is the Starbucks closes to her dance studio. They are there numerous times a week. People sit for hours. Kids meet there. Some order some don’t, but they all hang out together. She/they have never ever had a problem or been asked to order or leave.
And @amom2girls, help me out here, how many times has your daughter been arrested at Starbucks? Are we talking here about the very location in Philadelphia where the two black guys were arrested?
Are there many (any) Starbucks in inner city neighborhoods? If not, THAT’S how they can make a difference–start putting their shops in less yuppie locales.
Perhaps they’re already doing this. Someone please let me know if that’s the case.
Well,the Starbucks business model is to sell overpriced speciality coffee drinks along with an array of overpriced sandwich items so I’m not sure if inner city Starbucks is such a good idea.
But here’s the thing: being black does not equate with “poor” or “inner city”.
22% of African Americans live in poverty – which is a terrible thing – but that means that the other 78% have incomes that are above poverty level. 38% have incomes in the $35-$100K range; 12% have incomes of $200K or over. (Sources: http://blackdemographics.com/households/african-american-income/ http://federalsafetynet.com/us-poverty-statistics.html )
52% of African Americans live in suburbs – souce: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/10/trump-african-american-inner-city/503744/
So there are a significant number of not-poor, not-inner-city black people who ought to be able to walk into a Starbucks and assumed to be legitimate customers.
The problem with your post is the assumption that because a person is black, he somehow doesn’t belong in a shop in a yuppie locale. And that’s based on a false and discriminatory stereotype that is at the heart of why the store manager called the police, and why the police failed to exercise restraint and make appropriate inquiries before arresting anyone.
@“Cardinal Fang” , my daughter frequents that exact Starbucks. it is the closest to her dance training and very near Rittenhouse Square. They have never been hassled about being there. According to her Starbucks app she must buy something most of the time. I know her friends don’t always make a purchase. They all use the restroom and charge their phones.
Also, there are poor areas that are not literal inner cities, and there are literal inner cities that are not poor areas.
I criticized Starbucks for only placing their shops in less yuppie neighborhoods. I think they SHOULD branch out to less served neighborhoods, including more predominantly black and Latino neighboods. Of course blacks also live in yuppie neighborhoods. But putting shops in less affluent ones would show that Starbucks cares about the community more than any other action.
When did I, for one second, imply blacks shouldn’t be in any Starbucks they choose?! What Starbucks did (calling cops in first place) appalled me, and IMSO I don’t see why actual arrests by the cops was at all necessary. Why would you assume I feel otherwise?!
Some folks are making comparisons to the fracas at the Alabama Waffle House wherein a young woman was wrestled to the ground. Based on the facts so far disclosed, I do not believe the Alabama Waffle House incident should be compared to the Philadelphia Starbucks event. Seems like the young woman was looking for a confrontation from the get go.
In the context of this discussion, where we’re talking about Starbucks’ alleged bad actions in having two black guys arrested and Starbucks’ response of training their employees against bias against people of color, saying that Starbucks ought to put shops in inner city locations instead suggests that putting Starbucks in inner city locations is a way to help black people. But most black people are not poor inner city folks.
Is there evidence that Starbucks chooses its locations in a discriminatory way? That they’re leaving money on the table by not locating their stores in poor neighborhoods? Do they even avoid poor neighborhoods?
@LakeWashington I very much think it was similar to the Starbucks incident. I’ve also seen online a white customer who said the cops came in and immediately started grabbing onnthe young woman, never asking what was going on. In fact the woman has offered to testify should the woman be charged.
Again, a white person using the police force as the racism valet. It needs to stop.
Let’s not forget Starbucks is a business—aiming to make a profit. The incident in Philadelphia was racism and Starbucks employee need to be retrained or fired if they don’t comply with the way Starbucks wants all people treated in their stores. However, Starbucks is not going to open locations where the general population cannot afford to buy their coffee on a regular basis. Doesn’t matter the ethnicity of the area as much as whether there are enough people who have enough expendable income to spend on cofffee and snacks. Maybe Starbucks can put more effort into hiring and training employees from more diverse socio economic groups. But putting a Starbucks in the middle of a poor neighborhood would be ridiculous and would send a message that the chain is out of touch with the reality of being poor.