The issue before the court is whether Zagat Survey, LLC was guilty of disparagement or trade libel against Lucky Cheng’s Restaurant. I believe the court’s decision should be that Zagat Survey, LLC is not guilty of disparagement against Lucky Cheng’s Restaurant. According to our textbook, disparagement “is false statements about a competitor’s product, services, property or business reputation” (Cheeseman 98). Listed below are the reasons that I believe that Zagat Survey, LLC should be found innocent against the claim of disparagement. There are several different ways to prove disparagement. The first way is to show that Zagat Survey, LLC made and published an untrue statement about Lucky Cheng’s Restaurant on their product, services, property, or business reputation. The information that Zagat Survey, LLC published was from surveys based on opinions from customers and consumers that had dined at Lucky Cheng’s Restaurant. Everyone that reads reviews understands that reviews are based on a customer’s opinion of the experience that they had at the restaurant. An opinion is not considered to be an untrue statement and very hard to prove otherwise. Zagat Survey, LLC is not liable for an opinion given by another person that was published for other consumers to read about the experience that they …show more content…
In order to prove that the statements were malicious Lucky Cheng’s Restaurant needs to prove that Zagat Survey, LLC had intent to injure Lucky Cheng’s Restaurant. When a restaurant chooses to go into business the public has the right to critique the experiences that they have. The review that was published was not to hurt Lucky Cheng’s business, but to let other consumers know what they experienced when dining at Lucky Cheng’s Restaurant. Again, the review was based off many survey’s that were submitted to Zagat Survey, LLC on how they viewed their
No, word-of-mouth recruiting alone would not constitute disparate treatment. In order for it to be considered disparate treatment, the employer’s intention to discriminate must be proven, which in this case was not proven. Hwang simply used word-of-mouth since it was the most efficient method of recruiting for his small firm. A similar situation was seen in the case of EEOC v. Chicago Miniature Lamp Works 947 F.2d 292 (7th Cir. 1991), as cited by Bennett-Alexander at 143-144, in which the EEOC claimed that Chicago Miniature Lamp Works discriminated against blacks in it hiring through a word-of-mouth process. The court dismissed the treatment claim because it required intent, which was not proven.
Diana Ross case, the court should rule in favor for Gail Davis. In my opinion, the letter could be interpreted as libelous. The combination of expressed dissatisfaction with Davis’ work habits, her erroneous inclusion among a group of people who had been terminated, and the recommendation to not hire her, could be viewed as defamatory. Nevertheless, the court dismissed the lower courts view, that the statements were mere opinion, rather than purported fact. Since the letter claimed to be based on facts and was distributed to others, it was not a mere personal opinion. Additionally, the case was remanded, therefore, the court did not consider the issue of qualified privilege, which is another defamation defense that is often relevant in work related defamation actions Walsh, 2013. P. 153). Presumably, the unsolicited distribution of the letter with its recommendation not to hire, could be viewed as both malice, and as an overly broad publication. The failure to verify the simple fact that Gail Davis had not been fired, could also be viewed as reckless disregard for the
Chick-fil-A as a company cares deeply about their customers experience with the company. Chick-fil-A also wants to hear what its customers have to say through an open door policy. Chick-fil-A achieves this goal by allowing customers to freely right their reviews and thoughts on Chick-fil-A’s website. Overall, this program has been very successful and beneficial for both the customer and Chick-fil-A. Chick-fil-A has received a lot of positive feedback and has been able to improve their company because of the
The restaurants where I worked had owners who were very protective of their staff, treating them like family. I have witnessed instances where a guest has been extremely rude to an employee and they have been asked to leave and not come back. While Polk’s client waited until the waitress was out of earshot, many are not as careful with their words. I have been fortunate enough that the men that I work with refrain from using the degrading language described in the article, at least to my knowledge. I have not been so fortunate with guests at the restaurant. A specific incident I witnessed occurred when, after one of the waitress left a table asking if they needed anything else a male guest said to his companions that he “needs a good fuck from her.” The guest’s friends were all very amused by his comments and a few of them agreed with his comment. This particular guest was a regular at the restaurant and he had a reputation for being rude and creepy. None of the waitresses wanted to wait on him because of the way that he looked at them. This guest was asked by one of the managers, who also overheard the comment that I had heard, to leave and not return to the restaurant. I later found out from the manager that it was not the first time that he had overheard that particular guest making rude comments about members
Restaurants have a greater possibility of getting more money if they have "special" nutritional labels. Many people dislike the food label, yet some people are for them. Labels would not benefit anyone because they are not always right, and they sometimes just want the state to give them As for their grade, yet it sometimes if negative to have new foods on the menu. A food has to be evaluated before put on the menu, therefore it would be even more complicated. The author proclaims, "But for the restaurant, it is a nuisance and a potential threat to their business. It means that before a new item goes on the menu, it has to be evaluated." This statement explains that before a new item goes on the menu trouble is beginning. Labels are no help they just bring in more money because prices get higher from healthy
On the diner's Facebook page, critics questioned whether the discount was offered to those of non-Christian faiths. One such comment read, “Prayer discounts? Do you give prayer discounts to people who aren't of your religion ... like Sikhs or Hindus or Muslims or Jews?” NPR cited the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits religious discrimination in any place open to the public.
GANNETT CO. v. DEPASQUALE. (n.d.).The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved April 7, 2014, from http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1978/1978_77_1301
Family Dollar Stores of Colo., Inc., as support to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim, arguing that the court in Garcia rejected the deterrence theory. (ECF No. 71 at 6). This is an incorrect interpretation. The court did not reject the theory, it assumed, for the purposes of the order, that the Tenth Circuit would adopt this theory and then went on to explain why the plaintiff could not even satisfy that broader standing theory. Garcia v. Family Dollar Stores of Col., Inc., No. 16-cv-02348-RM-KLM, 2017 WL 3498955, at *3 (D. Colo. Aug. 16, 2017). Furthermore, this instant case is distinguishable from Garcia in several respects. First, the alleged discriminatory behavior in Garcia came from employees at the Pueblo Family Dollar store. Id., at *6. Here, the alleged discrimination comes from Denver’s ticketing practices and the physical condition of Red Rocks. Second, in Garcia the plaintiff “fail[ed] to plausibly allege that discriminatory conditions are continuing at any Family Dollar store.” Id. The two complained of employees no longer worked at the Pueblo Family Dollar store and the plaintiff could not make any showing that the behavior of those employees was a corporate policy. In this case, Plaintiff has alleged that the ticketing practices are still in place and that Red Rocks has not made any changes to their seating arrangements or ramps. Finally, in Garcia the plaintiff only alleged he had a fear of returning to any Family Dollar because he feared he
The main consumer characteristic that Cracker Barrel Old Country Store sets their standards on is “Pleasing people”. (Etzel, Walker, Stanton. 2001 pg. 204) A review of the Cracker Barrel Old Country store states, “This restaurant has a combo of good food, good service, and atmosphere. The gift shop is trendy, and affords one a place to browse. Do your browsing after the meal, for service is fast and efficient. One dines among country antiques that serve as decor. The country plates are a delight, and one must try the daily specials. Don't order dessert if you're not hungry. The blackberry cobbler and lemon icebox pie are superb. This is home cooking with affordable prices and great atmosphere.” (http://stlouis.citysearch.com/profile/3855636) Cracker Barrel stores appeal to both the traveler and the local customer and have consistently been a consumer favorite. Cracker Barrel was ranked as the top family dining chain for the eleventh consecutive year in the 2000 Restaurants & Institutions magazine "Choice in Chains" annual customer survey. It was also named “Best Family Dining” restaurant by Restaurant & Institutions magazine for the tenth consecutive year. The R&I award is based on a national consumer survey that evaluates chains on seven separate attributes: food quality, menu variety, value, service, atmosphere, cleanliness, and convenience. For 2000, Cracker Barrel scored highest among family dining establishments on every one of the attributes.
Disparate impact is considered to be unintentional discrimination, as Bennie’s case, where the restaurant employer believed that they were not being discriminatory in any way (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2015). In the case of disparate impact, discrimination is not obvious to individuals until a certain group of people of the same ethnicity or race recognize that they are at a disadvantage (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2015). Thus, Bennie’s seemed to have been screening on the basis of national origin, which lead the employer to believe that all Hispanics should be limited to one type of job, which is not fair (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2015). Thus, such screening device can be considered to be a disparate impact, which gives the employees the upper hand, and a higher chance of winning such a claim. Particularly, if the employees can demonstrate that all Hispanics were not given opportunities for advancement, while individuals that were non-Hispanic were given the best opportunities. Others may contest that affirmative action may be a solution. However, Bennie’s Restaurant would not be eligible on the basis of the workplace not being a federal or state job. Similarly, Roberts (2010) mentions that in the Griggs v. Duke Power Co, African-Americans were assigned only in the coal handling department, however, were not given
She then claims that fast food should not be considered healthy based on the number of healthy options provided but rather on which food options the consumers regularly purchase. To support this claim she provides an example of Subway’s marketing strategy using Jared Fogle which rebranded the restaurant as a place for healthy food. She then compares the consumer purchases between Subway and McDonalds and claims that despite Subway’s brand image as “healthy,” the caloric content of their sandwiches is not significantly lower compared to the food at McDonalds. Therefore, while consumers have low calorie options, most of the food at Subway contain a significantly higher caloric content than the options highlighted in the marketing strategy. She concludes her argument by arguing that all of this evidence shows that there is no relationship between menu options and healthy eating at fast food restaurants. She suggest that people should focus on changing consumer reactions to fast food and therefore eat fast food less often rather than looking for fast food chains to provide more
David Zinczenko states numbers and facts that open the eyes of his reader along with state his position of how fast food states no warnings that it could make someone obese or develop type 2 diabetes. His first statement is telling his readers a little background about how fast food affected his life and how he was once obese because he consumed such meals. Zinczenko explains how the increase in diabetes (specially type 2) were linked to the high consumption of fast food meals. He then goes on to address how much money is being spent to help take care of the mass amount of children with type 2 diabetes, showing how the price has gone up substantially over the past couple decades. The author then claims how the restaurants don’t give any healthy alternative and how its easier to find a McDonalds in American than an healthy alternative such as fruit. To wrap up the article he shares how he feels that obese kids who sue these fast food restaurants have good ground to do so since these places don’t put warnings on their foods; From Zinczenko himself “I say, let the deep fried chips fa...
As many people are trying to put the blame of obesity on restaurants, others, like myself, have a strong opinion that the restaurants have nothing to do with obesity and the customer has the right to order what they would like. Some supporters believe that government should take action to...
To start out, I decided to give a quick interview two different people about their opinion on McDonalds and their ethical behavior. Both of these two people come from different backgrounds, have different interests, and have a different life than one another. The first person I asked was named Dan. Dan eats fast food frequently and he also consumes and eats McDonalds at least once a week. The second person I asked was someone who was very health conscious and his name is Mike. Mike person rarely eats at McDonalds and estimated that he buys and eats from there about every three months.
Wheeler wrongfully discharges Beckett because of his strong discrimination of his homosexuality and because of Beckett's AIDS. According to American statutes, it is illegal for an employer to fire a man because of a terminal illness such as AIDS or Cancer, provided that the illness does not impede the man's performance. They concluded that the defendant believed that Andy wasn't a good lawyer, but then gave him one of the most impactful lawsuits for one of their most important clients, and then said that it was all a test. They then went on to say that it didn't prove to them beyond a reasonable doubt.