Site Loader

LOCATION

Rock Street, San Francisco

Lizardo versus Denny Inc. NDI

How the guards and Denny’s management should have handled the situation

            There were ways that the whole situation could have been handled to avert it culminating in a court case. On arrival of the patrons, the management would have prompted them to be patient as they organized a place for them. An explanation as to why other patrons who came in later got places would be crucial. It was so as to avoid the thought of any bias and discrimination among the various clients. Overall, the management should have ensured limiting the eruption of confrontations by being kind despite the situation.

On the other hand, the guards needed to be rational in their duties. They would have mediated in the situation before taking any actions. Hearing explanations from both parties would be of essence in determining the appropriate cause of action. Instant response from them only made the situation worse and seemed as they were biased. Consideration needed to be put in place while handling the matter (Padgett & S. H, 2001).

Why the security daytime occupation influenced the decision

            The officer’s daytime occupation mainly influenced the decision in the case. The busy working hours coupled with the altercation that occurred set the perfect situation for ambiguity. Intervening in the matter by numerous individuals enabled the creation of a mix-up. Harm on the patrons was as a result of a variety of factors. Various events that took place could be viewed from different angles hence providing a shield to the officer. Besides that, the ability to seek the intervention of cops played a role in saving the day. Furthermore, the officer wasn’t an employee of Denny’s and was acting on official duties was also among the reasons (Padgett & S. H, 2001). The security officers, after all, were placed in a precarious situation but the numerous incidents that occurred provided an escape loophole.

Justification of the court neglecting the case

Regarding the case, there is clear and enough explanation for its rejection as a discrimination one. On the plaintiffs’ part, they were unable to provide evidence of discrimination by Denny’s employees against them (Richardson & A. M, 2005). The evidence couldn’t sustain favoring of white patrons. It’s the consideration that similar minority groups were seated and served at the restaurant before their arrival. Another justification is that failure of the employees to greet them on arrival wasn’t discriminatory. It was brought about by the situation around the restaurant which was busy and had stretched the employees to their limit.

Besides, shoving of Lizardo by the security officers couldn’t be substantially proved as bias. The action might have stemmed from anger and not necessarily racial prejudice. The conduct of the officers in the parking lot couldn’t substantiate the claims as there was no history of preferential treatment on the diverse clientele. Employees never uttered any racial content or overtone to the clients. Sufficient evidence was unavailable to anchor the discriminatory claims. All those grounds lead to neglecting of the case.

How the case can serve as a precedent and conclusions established

The case can act as a precedent in tackling cases revolving similar circumstances (Richardson & A. M, 2005). Issues and instances surrounding racial discrimination in various contexts would be made clearer and ways devised on handling them. On top of that, parameters required to make outcomes conclusively would result and used as references. Various conclusions can come about from the precedent. One would be the burden of proof supported by evidence is crucial in convincing the jury in determining the likelihood of discriminatory intent. The other one would be situations where a retaliation claim can be applicable are considered either valid or invalid.

 

References

Padgett, S. H. (2001). Torts-White v. Revco Discount Drug Centers: Should Private Employers Be Held Liable for the Negligence of Off-Duty Police Officers Employed for Private Security Purposes. U. Mem. L. Rev.32, 537.

Richardson, A. M. (2005). Applying 42 USC Sec. 1981 to Claims of Consumer Discrimination. U. Mich. JL Reform39, 119.

Post Author: Kobe

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *