Starbucks FIRED Her for Being White?

A jury awards a former manager over $25 million for suffering anti-white discrimination from Starbucks, who fired her in the wake of a viral 2018 incident involving the police removing two black men from a store. Plus the White House’s weird tweet about kids, JK Rowling’s mic drop on the new definition of ‘lesbian,’ and Demi Lovato got tired of using they/them pronouns?
Subscribe to Unapologetic: www.prageru.com/series/unapol...
Join the Unapologetic Discord Server: / discord
Follow me on Social Media:
Instagram: / theamalaekpunobi
TikTok: / amalaekpunobi
Twitter: / amalaekpunobi
0:00 - Intro
0:45 - Starbucks Employee Awarded $25M for Anti-White Discrimination
10:33 - Equinox Employee Awarded $11M for Discrimination
20:47 - The White House Says Your Kids Are Our Kids?
28:25 - Ezra Miller Walks The Red Carpet Despite Assaults?
35:10 - Demi Lovato Got Tired of Using They/Them Pronouns
42:14 - Johns Hopkins University Uses "Non-Men" in Lesbian Definiton?
47:04 - Superchats!

[@urmumzknt]

She was a regional manager at Starbucks, which is actually really high up and pays very, very well. I think this lawsuit is 100% justified. You don't get to fire people just because they're a race you don't like.

[@thewizardsofthezoo5376]

Yeah but 25 mils, and I don't even like Starbuck a little, their coffee is below par.

[@readyraito9154]

@@thewizardsofthezoo5376 yes 25M.. cuz even those are nothing to Starbucks.. and they deserved this punishment, human and civil rights should be always respected.

[@thewizardsofthezoo5376]

@@readyraito9154 Maybe, but it is preposterous to hear about those figures when you think about all the homelessness there is in the US, that 1 person that already could makes a good living gets that ind of money on top, when physically she had nothing. I got fired for un-subordination to a young moron that didn't know the job, but was above me because he was American, I got nothing. America first my ass bunch of inconsequential fools.

[@bin4518]

Did her race change from the time she was hired through the promotion steps up to regional manager?

[@cbkitys]

Most of the money ends up with attorneys!

[@justinnevins107]

"Punitive" means punishment. If you hit them for $600,000, which would be a reasonable compensation from what was done to her, there would be no incentive for a massive corporation like Starbucks to not just do this all the time and just pay out if/when someone takes them to court and wins. $25M is an amount to "punish" a billion dollar corporation for their bad behavior. $600K is nothing to them.

[@waynewilson2079]

I think you missed it 25.6 million-dollar

[@Davethehedgehog]

​@@waynewilson2079 He didn't miss it. He's right. Punitive means it's to *punish* the company. If I fined you 600k, chances are it would hurt and stop you from doing something bad again. 600k is nothing to Starbucks, so it's not a punishment. 25million is closer to it. Still not enough to truly hurt, mind, but it's designed to hurt. That's the point. If it didn't hurt then they'd turn it into a cost/benefit in future situations and the cost is too low to outweigh the benefit. I'm not sure why Amala doesn't get that part of it, but that's why it is. The amount is relative to the power of the loser, not the hurt imposed. That's what the 600k is for.

[@justinnevins107]

​@waynewilson2079 $600,000 in compensator damages (like the 'actual' damages she sustained from lost job, lost wages, etc.), and $25,000,000 in "punitive" or "punishment for doing something bad in an amount that will actually 'punish' a major corporation" damages. It is a bit of a flaw in the civil law system where the person wronged receives the punitive damages ($25 million) in addition to the compensatory damages (actual harm). This can lead to a lot of frivolous lawsuits against corporations with deep pockets in order to get a big payday (think McDonalds with hot coffee burn case). But how else can you punish a major corporation so they don't do this again?

[@justinnevins107]

​@@Davethehedgehog yeah, with annual revenue of around $34 BILLION a year, it takes Starbucks about 8 hours to earn $25 million. It's not even 1/1000th of their annual income! Yeah, it's an expense, but it's a write off equal to less than 0.1% of their annual revenue.

[@Davethehedgehog]

​@@justinnevins107 Yeah, still not enough to stop them doing it again for sure. But 25M gets a lot of eyes, so it's better than just the 600k. With the uprisings that are going on right now they're probably counting their blessings and hoping it doesn't get more traction in the media. Not read the details of the case, but it would be interesting to know how she proved it. It seems like something that would be hard to pin down, I'm sure nobody sent emails or had any records of that being the reason.

[@nunyabidness1761]

If this is the case I’m thinking of, this woman was completely and absolutely trashed, smeared, doxxed, canceled and treated like a racist monster in the public square by the usual suspects over the incident that happened. In a situation like that, I see absolutely NO PROBLEM with awarding money like this.

[@arlettasloan6453]

That's true. Because, it's not just THAT she suffered but Starbucks was the reason WHY she suffered all that humiliation and fear. And, it's not like people haven't seen her face and won't still think bad thoughts about her later. This is now a constant aspect of her life and not one she chose to initiate then put online for public consumption.

[@4867503]

The 25.6 million payout lady sounds very excessive until you remember how huge of an online and legacy media hate campaign there was for this woman, and how much her life was ruined as a result of Starbucks essentially casting her out like a cancerous tumor despite having done nothing wrong or outside of policy. I think she deserves everything she got if not more, simply because Starbucks is more than capable of affording it, and they were knowingly pouring a ton more gas on the fires of racial divisions in the country at that time by showing favoritism toward the "customer" rather than backing their employee who stuck to policy

[@therealfriday13th]

Punitive damages are important. They are the civil equivalent of prison time.

[@thewizardsofthezoo5376]

Yeah but 25 mils boys, let me go get hired by starbucks...

[@sabrinadevine5838]

Im not sure how the legal system works in the US do you have to pay your lawyers out of that $25m? In Ireland it is separated the plaintiff gets money then the solicitors get paid separately.

[@thewizardsofthezoo5376]

@@sabrinadevine5838 TBH with that money they could have sorted a 1000 homeless peeps, that woman was on a 6 figure plus already. I find all this disturbing, /i'll lose my job over 25 mils every day .

[@robertritchey1334]

The 8th amendment prohibits excessive fines. I understand that punitive damages are to make examples so that nobody does it again, but the question still deserves to be asked, "how much is excessive?"

[@therealfriday13th]

@@delyankirov8895 that's more an argument against damage caps than damages themselves.

[@RR-ds4sd]

Would 600k hurt Starbucks? No. Punishment must hurt, that's why 25 million, otherwise they'll keep doing it.

[@chynnareyes]

Amala girl.....I usually agree with your takes...I can't get on board with letting companies get away with discrimination for protected classes race, gender, religion etc... I think she was awarded appropriately based on her horrendous treatment and also Starbucks is a mega corporation. $25 million is a great deterrent for other big companies to not take part in discrimination.

[@noble604]

Please don’t use this platform as any source of information of the truth for what happened in that case. From the time the two young men came in and sat down to wait for their third party of the meeting to arrive until the time 911 was called for the police to come arrest them for “loitering” was two minutes. Ridiculous.

[@noble604]

Just sèarch - Philly Starbucks two minutes

[@minisnakali]

​@@noble604 They were asked to order something or leave, they refused to do either. When you are asked to leave a property and refuse you are trespassing which is a crime. I'm of the opinion police response should always be fast, it is sad to know police don't move as quickly if the suspect is white but that doesn't negate the fact these two men were in the wrong. If I walked onto your property and refused to leave you could call the police to have them remove me because doing something yourself could be dangerous. This is no different, I've been asked to leave or order something else at starbucks before after finishing a drink I'd ordered and instead of refusing the options I got up and left like I was asked. Police was involved because these men refused to leave or order something, no one should have been fired over this because no one at the starbucks did anything wrong.

[@Blueeyedconcubine]

I believe the punative damages shows that the jury is tired of companies doing this stuff.

[@justgopherit3454]

Starbucks getting sued for anti-white discrimination was the funniest and best thing I've heard in a long time. That just put a huge ass smile on my face! Also, when it comes to the amount of $ in the lawsuit Amala, you have to consider the position of a regional manager for a large company along with possible promotions, and then making the argument that what the company was 'attempting' to do to her, could possibly make it to where no one would 'ever' hire her again. So it's a lifetimes wages of possibly a very high position. Most of us never take the time to even figure out what we ourselves make over our entire lives, and it's more than we think. It's pretty easy to make an argument for at least a couple million. I also don't think you're weighing the amount of damage caused by the complete defamation of ones life.

[@cameronuy9552]

This is one of the best arguments for the case. Many people do not think of the repercussions of what this could have done to her image and even after the case. She might not even be guaranteed to get another job considering the lawsuit and the amount granted to her. Many companies might see her as a risk even if it was judged correctly in her favour.

[@ortho-g9826]

In Civil rights violation awards, the amount of the monetary award is DOUBLED automatically. Obviously, this is to discourage the continued practice of this type of discrimination.

[@lesevesel2898]

[stands up and applauds]

[@Aequitas4VERlTAS]

There should be a cap. 25 mil is ridiculous. 11 mil is too much!

[@Engrave.Danger]

​@@Aequitas4VERlTASI don't think the amount was so much about how much she got but how much Starbucks has to lose. If it wasn't a significant amount, they wouldn't necessarily be concerned about it reoccurring.

[@gardengypsy70]

I recently, in the course of the last four years applied multiple times at Starbucks. I am a married white woman over 45, with all the qualifications yet I was told each time there was no place for me. Meanwhile, all of my local Starbucks are hiring. Soooooooo I boycotted Starbucks based on their discrimination against me.

[@youthofyesterdayrecords]

Good for you. However, if you really want to work for them, go to a new location and state that you intend to wear the "they/them" pin. You'll be hired on the spot.

[@felixoupopote]

It’s probably age discrimination as much as anything.

[@felixoupopote]

You’re about my age. Remember when we were in our 20s and we were too young for everything ? And then thee days after we turned 30, suddenly we were too old? I feel like I should have been able to sue someone yearly.

[@sugakookie6303]

Ageism is discrimination just as much as anything else…

[@nomasker1360]

If you gain a hundred pounds and dye your hair green or blue , and get a nose and tongue ring , and get an Asian tattoo thats says Just Breathe , you'll be hired on the spot .

[@toddmacadam3888]

Okay, what I don't understand is the 2018 case that led to this debacle. Two black men were sitting at a table in the Philadelphia Starbucks. They were asked to either order something or leave. They refused, because they were waiting for someone. The manager called the police and they were arrested. Here's the part I don't understand: why is Starbucks viewed as the ones in the wrong here? I don't care what race, gender, age, or religion you are, a place of business exists for 1 reason: TO DO BUSINESS. If you want to meet up at a Starbucks, no problem: order something! If asked to order something or leave, you can (1) order something, or (2) leave. THERE IS NO 3RD OPTION! This isn't a racial issue. I'm a privileged CIS white male and I guarantee you if I go sit in a Starbucks without ordering, I'll be asked to order something or leave. If I want to stay (because I'm meeting someone), I'll order something. If not, I'll leave. How the f*ck is this discrimination? I get that black people are often discriminated against in the US, but this is insane. And from there, it sounds like Starbucks went insane in over-correcting something that doesn't sound like racial discrimination in the first place. Now, I don't know the full story. Maybe it's not what happened, but rather how it was handled. Maybe they'd only sat down for 5 minutes and were already being told to order or gtfo. But as the situation has been described I the articles I've read, it sounds no different than what I'd experience if I did the same thing (except that I woukd either order or leave, as instructed). Imagine having the audacity to say, "No, I'm not going to leave your place of business, and I'm not going to purchase any of your products. I'm going to treat your private business like a public facility." So fcking bizarre.

[@jrmckim]

I've been asked to leave Starbucks before... I had finished my order and was sitting at a table texting my sister when I was asked to order again or leave. The place was kinda busy and I was taking up a table. I wasn't asked to move... I was asked to leave... I didn't make an issue. I just got my stuff and left. I am a married White/Asian woman in my early 30s... I just assumed the place was getting busy and they needed to clear people out. Had nothing to do with my race or sex.

[@toddmacadam3888]

@jrmckim8980 Right? I feel like there must be more to the original story, but the part that I keep coming back to is, "they were asked to order something or leave, but they refused." I simply don't understand how being asked to order something at a coffee shop is racist, or how a person refusing to leave can be in the right.

[@TheGDizzo]

Negative... sir... you're simply a White male. PLEASE do NOT feed into all the BULLSH!T out there and tack-on all those other terms invented by folks who blame their own lack of success on everybody else but themselves.

[@arlettasloan6453]

I concur. Of course, I do not know the manner in which they were asked to leave. Maybe they were yelled at. Maybe the person was stage whispering, "Can you believe these n ... getting ready to rob us!" first. But, since none of that has been brought up, probably not.

[@noble604]

you do know they were in there for two minutes, right? 🙄

[@caldwela]

As a former military reservist who was terminated by two companies because of my service (which is "protected") there does have to be some level of protection. I worked for Medtronic, a company that promotes they are pro-military, guard, and reserve, but they are not. I went from an award winning employee to terminated because I had to go for extended military training. There does have to be some protections from companies only being worried about their bottom line. This is why there are so many regulations, because prior to, employees were fired, exposed to toxic chemicals, worked never ending hours, and much more that just took advantage of the employees.

[@itsnotme7969]

We should never just allow companies to discriminate based on race, religion nor sexuality. That seems basic to me. Is that really up for debate??

[@StringofPearls55]

I agree, but when you agree to take a position then you should do the job the company hired you to do, not what you feel you're race, religion etc., says you should do. For example, if a Christian school hires an athiest, that person should be fired if they teach against Christ. But we should discriminate based on sexuallity especially when children are involved. I fought to remove hiring trans people as bus drivers in my school and won.

[@helios7706]

In certain cases, we should be able to discriminate based on religion and sexuality. I wouldn't want a gay atheist teaching my children at a Christian private school. And private companies should be able to turn any customer away. Although, it would be great if no one cared about race.

[@tonycatman]

Yep. It is up for debate. You are forgetting that companies are made up of individuals, and can be made up of two, very hard working people. If you are a devout Christian, you may not want to make a gay wedding cake. And if you are a straight guy who runs a restaurant, you may not want to see two gay people kissing at the table. If you find it repulsive - you have that right. Indian restaurants and Chinese restaurants are allowed, in law, to employ Indian or Chinese waiters. And if you put on an opera - say the Barber of Seville, you are allowed to choose a male opera singer. When the next MLK movie gets made, it seems perfectly reasonable to pick a black person for the role. And, finally, if you are looking for a new Rabbi to run your Synagogue - you don't need to give equal opportunities to Christians or Muslims.

[@elizabethmuko5496]

Exactly, especially since they are against affirmative action when it comes to college admissions. It seems hypocritical. It is both discrimination.

[@dragonrings14]

Switch race to ethnicity and nationality. Your culture or where your born shouldn't matter. Race is an outdated bunch of pseudo science. We shouldn't have to include it in laws or rules given it shouldn't exist in civilised society.

[@keitht.ridings9632]

No, discrimination on any level is wrong.

[@eeeheehe]

Thank you! I usually agree with Amala but this was not it

[@ortho-g9826]

Not really. Not any more.

[@elizabethmuko5496]

I agree

[@NyssaOwens]

​@@ortho-g9826 wrong is wrong. The legality of something doesn't dictate its morality.

[@rafaelconcepcion895]

So if i say i'm a nanzi or something or i get with some disgusting or bizarre paintings to your business is okay. Or if the end of life is like being save for a religion and i spread that message to your customers or to you. Those are my believes, so you have to take them, right?

[@QueenieEileenie]

There’s a difference between not getting hired and getting fired. If I’m already an employee and I’m counting on that paycheck and I lose my job I’m much more affected than if I never got the job in the 1st place. If I found out I didn’t get hired because of discrimination I’d let it go. But if I got fired over it I’d need a hefty severance package to not sue.

[@VanSolus]

In my opinion, If a person is unfairly fired, that person deserves every penny they can get. There’s a difference between hiring someone who met your preferences and getting someone fired over nonsense.

[@allisondooley4335]

Did she get so much because she was dragged online and her reputation was ruined? I remember that happening. Just a thought.

[@Shudderetal]

I don't understand why Amala is arguing from the position of not being hired, when that wasn't why the woman sued Starbucks.

[@st8fromtheho0d18]

Agreed, she had a job and had built herself up to a regional manager. This usually takes years in most cases!!!

[@emilylee9894]

Amala often misses the assignment & builds on a tangent. Also, the point of not being hired currently vs historically is differently. In the past, in the US, the vast majority of jobs with high pay, perks and generous benefit packages l, only went to whites, not to Blacks, Italians, Jews, Greeks, nor Asians.

[@derrickgrisham8722]

I don’t know if Amelia’s been working for a very long time due to her age but when you work at a job or a company you sign a document about discrimination I feel like she’s missing the point How is it OK for the right woman to sue Starbucks anti-harassment and she’ll be fine with it but when the black woman sues the company she’s not OK with it she’s like the uncle ruckus Boondocks Any discrimination is bad believe me I had a manager Said the worst things to me about my race and my sexuality I never discussed

[@savannahj6660]

Thank you! I was wondering the same thing.

[@thecamillarose9806]

​@@st8fromtheho0d18oh yes that usually makes sense

[@ariannamyrick]

I used to agree with u except the fact that I was fired for being pregnant and wasn’t able to get another job, me and my husband struggled my whole pregnancy to buy what our baby needed bc we went from a two income family to living on one income, we were 1600 dollars poorer every month. I didn’t sue but I did report them to the department of labor bc I had a co worker who found out that she was pregnant and didn’t want her getting screwed over bc she was single.

[@sadclownco]

In your golf store analogy, the female salesperson wouldn’t be getting fired because she was a woman, she would be getting fired because she is unable to relate to the customer base or understand the needs of men for golfing attire. THAT is a perfectly reasonable reason to fire someone. If there was a saleswoman who understood the styles and needs of male customers and was really involved in the sport and business who was fired merely because of her biology, THAT is discrimination. I don’t think discrimination for sex or race is ever ok. I do however believe that someone’s personality and lifestyle can effect whether or not their employment is continued. I don’t think firing someone because their values don’t align with the company is discrimination

[@johnandersons]

Ability to do the job is the only criteria that should be used in hiring and firing. Wish that was the case...

[@RPGryphus]

... Discrimination on the basis of race, gender and religion is worth more than $25 millions in punitive damages. The issue is not that just ONE person was discriminated, but that if one can and is allowed to be discriminated, discrimination will take roots wherever it appears. It's like bad weeds. That punitive damages is a deterrent to not violate our human rights.

[@annad8636]

Yeah start doing this and black people will be rich

[@lorrieprothero2175]

In the 80s i was denied jobs because they had their quota filled of white women but was told that if i had documentation of 16% or more of native indian they would allow me to interview. I wasn't allowed to sue because California allowed for affirmative action discrimination.

[@youthofyesterdayrecords]

Yeah, but one person gets that money.

[@kitchfacepalm]

If a company like Starbucks were to be fined a small amount, it would not be punitive. It seems like a lot for one person, however the punishment is for the organisation.

[@annad8636]

There are people wrongly convicted And spend decades in prison and when they are released they don’t get this much. Workplace discrimination is so bad for black people, yeah anyway

[@jimmyboy131]

Discriminating before you hire is one thing. There should be a reasonable amount of discrimination to hire only people that fit your company (whatever that means). Firing someone is very different. They've already been hired, they're even at a manager level. So firing them based on skin color is not only illegal, it's very messed up. And they should be sued and required to pay heavily. It's the principle of the matter there. Especially based on skin color! What?? And especially in today's society where people are behaving like they have carte blanche to be racist against whites ("because they're just white people, amirite?"), then something needs to be done to stop this madness, and the perpetrators should not get away with it. Now I'll say that there should be solid proof that the reason they were fired is simply because of skin color, not just allegations or because of provable misbehavior and valid reasons for firing. Going back to discriminating before hiring, I've been flat out told in once instance that my application will not be accepted because I'm white. Should I have sued? Maybe. But then again I would sue only to say that that's illegal, don't do that, because I would not want to work at that place regardless. In that case they should simply have told me what is typically said, something like we've already decided on a candidate, or whatever. But don't say we're not accepting you because of your skin color. If you're that foolish and arrogant then you should be sued.

[@peekaboo6622]

Requiring a particular appearance, or qualifiers, is not discrimination.

[@slaapliedje]

​@peekaboo6622 depends... if I am applying for a desk job, my appearance, skin color, etc should have nothing to do with it. If someone is being hired as a model... then clearly discrimination is pretty much the definition of the requirements.

[@peekaboo6622]

@@slaapliedje Your image is the company's image - even the janitor matters.

[@jimmyboy131]

@@peekaboo6622 It's the definition of discriminating, which is to choose based on certain criteria. It isn't connected only to skin color.

[@peekaboo6622]

@@jimmyboy131 Discrimination is based on: sex, age, race, religion, or political party.

[@DannyAGray]

I'm having a really hard time with your take on this discrimination story. Taylor says this lady should have just gone to the press, and I completely disagree! The racial bias against white people is rampant, and no one would have cared. This large payout, regardless of how much it is, sends a stern warning to other huge companies that white-hate isn't any more acceptable than any other racial discrimination. More power to this woman!

[@johnandersons]

Agree 100%

[@arlettasloan6453]

Taylor seems to live in a very sheltered world. That lovely middle class spot wherein it's not too high and its not too low, so they are vitally unaware of racism against their kind unless someone tells them about it in a film or news clipping. I don't know if it's true, but that's how it seems. Don't take that as me making fun of him. It's actually a great place to be because you just take people at what is called face value, which doesn't actually involve the color of their face.

[@dandylion188]

$ 25 M is a drop in the bucket for a large corporation like Starbucks. The very purpose of punitive damages is to "make an example [of the perpetrator]" , as Amala put it. So this is most definitely a just award. Yes, $25 M is a lot to award to an individual. I would be perfectly happy if they awarded $ 100 M, with 10 going to the plaintiff, and 90 going to anti-discrimination efforts.

[@lonniemonroe2714]

Not if YOU were the plaintiff. You would want your 100 mil. I don't go to Starbucks. I'm white male. I don't like their politics. Crap is overpriced. I can make my own coffee. All white ppl should avoid Starbucks. There are enough snowflakes out there to keep em going.

[@tonygyles7351]

Every time they do then double the fine This will change their behaviour.

[@jdemetz86]

Of course the court was trying to make an example of Starbucks... that's what punative damages are for.

[@thumper84]

They were way too low

[@sandwichqueen6875]

Not being hired is different than getting fired though

[@booklover1510]

Exactly!

[@battlex3]

Its different, yes. But its mostly the same. If you dont get the job cause of the color of your skin or you lost your job for the same reason, yes its two differents thing. But in the two case you got discriminate over your skin color.

[@btea8046]

​@@battlex3 this is completely true.

[@marissashantez6051]

It would still be wrong to not hire someone due to them being white.

[@KalyElizabeth]

I usually am behind what Amala says, but I can’t get behind being able to discriminate as a business owner based on race, sex, religion or sexual orientation. For most jobs (not all, but most) none of that should matter.

[@MrJLocklair]

what’s an example of a job where racial discrimination would be appropriate?

[@nicolewhite6030]

I mean I'm not saying that it's okay for racial discrimination but there have been jobs that have been extremely selective about the type of people that they hire Abercrombie & Fitch for example you really think that up until now they were hiring plus size models and their clothes were demographically made for skinny people so when you think about that that's pretty it's a pretty good example of some type of discrimination in hiring practices.

[@brosef5033]

I think it is.. Like, I can understand why some companies wouldn’t hire fat people for physical labor jobs, or women.. Because they won’t be as efficient and that is just the facts of the matter. I am not against men in childcare but if I he the choice between a woman and a man I would choose the woman because they have a more nurturing nature. Discrimination is fine if it is done for valid reasons and not arbitrary, hateful reasons. If you have a company you are allowed to hire people to reflect the image of your company.

[@schell0118]

What's wrong with discriminating against people based on what they think? Everyone does that all the time.

[@oddfielder]

We need some punitive damages for pharmaceutical companies. It has to be high enough to make them stop.

[@GemnEyes]

Sorry Amala, I have to disagree respectfully. I do feel that if it's something about you that you cannot physically change, and you're fired for it, it should be grounds to sue, absolutely. I mean why hire them in the first place, only for it to suddenly be an issue later.

[@jacoblehrer4198]

but it is okay not to hire them in the first place?

[@kaleightodd5173]

​@@jacoblehrer4198 I believe it's the business owners right to hire/ not hire whoever they want on whatever basis they want, and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. BUT race/orientation/religion/etc. should not be the basis for being fired from a job you've already been hired for, which is what seemed to be the issue.

[@btea8046]

​@@jacoblehrer4198 nope, it is NOT okay to not hire someone based on someone's religion, age, sex, and race. That is just not right (I am an HR executive).

[@thumper84]

No. How about when I am the one signing the front of the check nobody has the right to question why I hire who I hire.

[@thumper84]

​@@btea8046no what's not right is government telling someone who they have to do business with.

[@ratty2012]

She’ll have to carry that “racist” badge for the rest of her life and I’m sure she’ll miss job opportunities because companies don’t want that hassle.

[@AminahDemrane]

With all that money she wont have to work...

[@billthomas478]

She doesn't need money anymore

[@danielbarnes1541]

​@@AminahDemrane 😂 she's not going to get all of that money

[@citizenyane3385]

As if she needs their shítty jobs. Lollllll

[@citizenyane3385]

​@@danielbarnes1541 you sound happy about that.

[@grimm6198]

I think that yes companies should be allowed to discriminate when hiring because they should be able to make sure that the person is not only qualified but will also get along with the rest of the staff members. However, I don't believe it's ok to fire someone because of discrimination. If the person is already there you should not be able to fire them just because of their skin colour, identity, or whatever else. There needs to be valid reason and cause for firing someone.

[@StringofPearls55]

Punitive damages are specifically for the purpose of punishing the company. It's supposed to make a statement. In this case, she was fired, not, not hired. With that amount of money involved she must not have been responsible but fired regardless. In this case because of her skin color. We need more details.

[@mattjack3983]

I just don't agree with Amala here. Normally I do, but not on this one. It's one thing not to hire someone for race or gender, but to fire someone who has already been hired and is working, and take away their source of income over something that they can't control like the color of their skin, just isn't ok and a punitive compensation and lost wages compensation should be ordered. I agree with the ruling 100% on this case. Companies should have considerable freedom to as they like, the there has to be some perimeters and boundaries, otherwise we open the flood gates for some pretty dangerous stuff. Civil Rights either exist or they dont. Amala is definitely wrong on this one.

[@ryker8814]

completely agree idk what she was saying honestly

[@eeeheehe]

Girl this wasn’t it!!! I usually agree with you but THIS?!! Discrimination REGARDLESS is wrong!!!

[@kkistbh824]

She may never be able to get hired again…you Google her name and this comes up….that’s why she gets the high verdict

[@thewizardsofthezoo5376]

25 mils you don't need to work ever again, but even a couple would have done.

[@leeann5530]

That's what I was thinking. Being terminated in connection with an incident of discrimination that so publicized has the potential to ruin someone's professional and personal life. Whether they were actually at fault or not. Especially once social media gets a hold of things.

[@MommaOsoIrish67]

Many years ago I worked in a restaurant at a truck stop. I was responsible for cleaning of the restrooms during my shift. After seeing the disgusting conditions, No way do I want to share a restroom with men!

[@ObjectiveEthics]

I used to own my own professional janitorial company and I can tell you that the women's bathrooms were significantly more dirty than the men's bathrooms. I can also tell you that most companies add decorative items to women's bathrooms but almost never do this to men's bathrooms. I can also tell you that men don't usually ask another man if he wants to go to the bathrooms with him but women do this all the time. That may be why women's bathrooms get twice as dirty as men's bathrooms but it might just be a coincidence too.

[@MommaOsoIrish67]

@@ObjectiveEthics I always thought that until my experience at that truck stop.

[@heidiclement4923]

I’d agree EXCEPT… That’s the same amount across the board with other races in discrimination. Especially since she was an example made herself and that will long-term effect her career (fired, racism insinuating, etc), AND fighting for her rights will possibly make her unhireable in the future. No one will want to touch someone who sued a company.

[@annapuppy899]

I think you can be slightly discriminatory when hiring - but not when firing. Hiring you choose for fits your team and hopefully the most skilled person gets the job. However, firing you must have reason based on performance to let someone go.

[@johnandersons]

You should hire who you think can best do the job. And if they cannot you fire them. If only things were that simple.

[@jeremyk9000]

Given what a terrible job Joe did with Hunter, I think he should be the last person offering any parenting services.

[@rileyjanemeli618]

$25 million isn't even one half of one day's revenue for Starbucks. It is meant to be a punishment to discourage future misconduct. I would think that they should give up a full day of revenue each time they are found liable for discrimination.

[@edgarwhite9439]

How much do you think someone's civil rights are worth? With the rise of white discrimination, should they have not made a statement LOUD AND CLEAR that this will not be tolerated? Curious about what you all think?

[@spacegirl6590]

Agree. Amala’s take on this is unexpected imo

[@AnnaBanana3355]

Spot on!!! I don't understand Amala's take on it and there's more to the story. I'm glad that Taylor pulled the article but there's more to it.

[@schell0118]

Yes. In fact it isn't a question of "someone's civil rights". It is a question of everyone's civil rights.

[@edgarwhite9439]

@@schell0118 Yes.. “Everyone” is kinda what I meant by “someone’s”. But I appreciate you telling me your opinion. Thank you

[@donkey6906]

For real if they only charge 600k for a billion dollar company they would just fire everyone they dont like and do the payouts without a second look

[@triciatinker9456]

The court or jury determined the amount she was awarded. She didn’t determine the amount they named.

[@jurassicjaws]

Demi said in a different interview that she started using they/them pronouns because she didn't like how women were sexualized in media. Not long after that, she revealed she was filming sexual scenes for a movie. And let's not forget that during the pronouns timeline she tried to get a small frozen yogurt shop closed because she got upset over public stores not being respectful of her ED (while shaming products that are meant for people with certain food allergies and inflammation issues). And while that was going on, she was promoting a dangerous weight loss "tea" which probably attracted people with EDs, or at the very least caused a lot of her young and gullible followers to experience intestinal distress and severe dehydration. She's a massive hypocrite. I don't doubt she's been through hell and back since she was a child star in Hollywood, but she's got the terminally online victim complex thing happening 24/7, and that makes it real hard to feel empathy towards her situation.

[@MusicallyInclinedful]

Once you get doxed, there's no coming back from it. Look at what is at risk for her family, friends, future employment. She went from being a relatively unknown regional manager to one of the most hated persons in america. She has to be heavily compensated.

[@citizenyane3385]

The company is worth billions. There's a huge difference between a YT commentary channel and a multinational, multi-billion dollar company. She was already working there, this was no biased application process. More power to her. Ppl won't boycott anything for the right reasons. As if they're going to forego their Starbucks? No. They'll simply justify it in their mind.

[@RachelJayne92]

Yep, Starbucks is gonna be okay financially.

[@Mommy369]

I was born a woman and still call myself a woman. I believe in God, marriage between a man and woman, and this social crap has gotten literally insane. I am for hire

[@johnandersons]

I am a man. I believe everyone should have equal rights under the law regardless of what they look like, who they sleep with, and what they believe. I view marriage as the religious term for a civil union. Make civil union the legal term for all marriages regardless of the sex of the partners and let the churches call it marriage.

[@jack80028]

Imagine if it was a black person who got fired for being black it will be in international news and they would have to Pay them like 2-3 million in damages

[@BonjourMama]

Amala, I think you missed the point on this one. Punitive was to punish this billion dollar corporation for the job this woman already had, not one she was hoping to get.

[@scoriodes]

They probably wanted to make an example of the company. Similar to the person who was burned by McDonalds coffee getting millions.

[@sabrinadevine5838]

Bathroom topic: In my final year of University they came up with the gender neutral bathrooms. They made them the disabled toilets. What ended up happening groups of people were using the bathrooms together meanwhile disabled people like myself couldn't get to use them. It was very irritating.

[@brighid13]

My mom also had something similar happen. She was not hired at a job because she was white. I wish she would have sued but that was 30 years ago. Not sure it would have worked then.

[@kevin2960]

I had something like this happen. I do Electronics engineering, I applied for a job designing an amplifier circuit and due to the fact that I know someone that works there I was literally the most qualified person that they interviewed and the only one that the owner liked however HR didn't hire me because they felt the need to hire someone that was black. Which I might add only lasted one month at the company and they wound up losing this whole project because they couldn't get it done on time. If someone's more qualified then hire that person, but higher people on their merit I don't care what color somebody is.

[@gracegrace3205]

How did you get access to everyone's files and information to know without a doubt you were the most qualified? Are you assuming the person hired couldnt possibly be more qualified than you.AND after you continue to stalk a company who didnt want , you found out the person hired was black, and for months getting private information from inside a company where you didnt work, that they couldnt do the job, HOW?? I smell b.s.Same tired azz story whenever a POC is hired instead of a white person as if no qualified black people exist or EVER gets the jobs instead.Oy

[@jesclifford88]

Sad they didn’t give you the job but hopeful they learned a lesson!

[@queenofswordspodcast]

We were discussing the Equinox case at work today, and my understanding is that she wanted him fired but he was friends with the managers ABOVE her, so they did the whole "boy's club" thing and ignored her push to fire him.

[@lilalicata616]

Only problem I have with Equinox case is I haven’t seen any evidence. With the Starbucks case, a black manager is on camera in a zoom meeting admitting she is to be fired because she is white.

[@blueiepureesteluca]

Oh this is awful. In this case she deserves her compensation money

[@newyearnewthought]

If the companies are not hit hard like this, they will just avoid following the law and payout because $600,000 is absolutely nothing for Starbucks and after the legal fees and taxes she wouldn't get $600,000. I will be shocked if Starbucks even has to pay the full amount.

[@OrganizeCreateDecorate]

I just found your channel yesterday and love it. I have been binge-watching since. While I pretty much agree with everything you've said and non-stop tell my hubby about what I've seen in your videos, I have to say, Boomers, even those on the older boomers, know so much more than you think we do. And this "barely can log into their email" comment. Really? Amala, that's so laughable. We were probably on the internet before you were born. My hubby was a programmer analyst starting possibly before you were born. So yeah, Boomers, even older ones, know more than you are giving us credit for. Thanks for the laugh though. God bless you.

[@megawomanv9426]

Totally disagree with you on this one. This woman was in a relatively high position. She will have this on her resume and may have a difficult time getting another job. Someone needs to stand up to these corporations to let them know this is not ok. -in response to just walking away😊

[@kwazokuhlemfeka]

someone be racist to me I need to get the bag 💰😭😹

[@GilgameshTheGayKing]

Being forsaken by your older brother and the dad that adopted you at birth being even brattier than me oh lawd have damn weird pain mercy.

[@Gl6619]

Can my white mother giving up for adoption qualify?🤣🤣🤣😁

[@junior.von.claire]

15:30 I think he’s right about the “private” vs “publicly traded”, but the amount of punitive damages always seems high to many TIK History - Public VS Private is available on YT and is the best explanation I’ve found on the subject

[@austinlea847]

I think it’s dangerous to say that it should be allowed for businesses to discriminate based on race, gender, etc. I think you’re playing with fire with that one . It’s all funny until it’s you not being able to find a job because of your characteristics

[@cyborgrat]

why is it happening so much, that we need to worry about it?

[@jaffacake_hero]

I feel like it’s the concept of the slippery slope. Where is the line? And do the rules for one thing now carry across to the another? I hate to admit it but there are extreme views on all sides and if the extreme left can do it, the extreme right can also do it. The difficulty is enforcement, what does “discrimination “ actually look like? It seems to be getting watered down more and more. There should be a clear definition that applies to all races, both sexes and genders to level the metaphorical playing field for everyone in that sense. It should be based in immutable characteristics but at the moment nobody can define that. you have the right to not hire someone based on how they dress.. If they show up to an interview with neon pink hair and a dress as a man, how they dress technically isn’t their gender. It’s not an immutable characteristic. It’s just not appropriate attire for an interview . Everyone has the ability to put on a smart suit regardless of gender and if you want a job, it’s not a stretch to ask. I also find it hard to imagine how someone can be discriminated for their sexuality In the Hiring process. The only way you can know someone’s sexuality is if they tell you or if you ask. Neither is appropriate for work. It is literally who you have sex with (although in some cases who your life partner is)

[@austinlea847]

@@jaffacake_hero Very eloquently said!

[@RichLopp]

People like you are playing a VERY important role during this time. You are a fellow light worker. Shining light on the darkness and deception. You are greatly appreciated sister.

[@johnnygaster2224]

I think getting rid of laws that ban discrimination is a terrible idea. Sure, most people now wouldn't start discriminating, but history has shown time and time again that society can devolve. It wasn't too long ago when "no blacks allowed" was a thing in America, and the laws were made to prevent things from going to that point again. Though sure, there are some very specific jobs where there needs to be a bit of discrimination, or at least some quotas for certain kind of employees, for example I'm not sure how many women would wanna get a bikini waxing from a dude lol.

[@johnandersons]

Problem is, unless they are applied to everyone not just some select groups, they will always be unfair. And they are very hard to prove. Just because you didn't get the job doesn't mean you were discriminated against.

[@TommyMoritz]

If it’s punitive damages, isn’t that because the person suffered serious damage to their career or reputation?

[@mattjack3983]

No. "Punitive" means punishment. When a company is ordered to pay punitive damages, they are more or less "being taught a lesson" for their wrongdoing against that person. So in case this case, the $600K would be to compensate her for her lost wages for being abruptly terminated due to her race. The $25M would be the punitive damages, or the punishment, for violating her rights.

[@MarieAnne.]

No. Compensatory damages ($600,000) is about the damage to the employee's career or reputation. Punitive damages ($25,000,000) is about punishing the company's behaviour, and to discourage such behaviour in the future.

[@Gamergurl1083]

She got that much, here on out she will be labeled. Jobs maybe hard. This needs to go all way to people. Anyone needs to be able to do this if they have proof.

[@sophiaalvarez6137]

I read an article about this. Its insane that starbucks thought they could get away with this! I hope the other employee they fired gets the bag too!

[@ams914]

Fantastic legal precedent being set here. This may begin to turn the entire tide.

[@jamesestelle7260]

Not hiring isn't as big of an issue as firing for it.

[@C.L.190]

I love Amala. She's so classy and intelligent

[@michaelcoulter1725]

Yeah she is definitely a lovely person😮

[@research1586]

I can't hear her through her beauty.

[@brotherbruns2989]

I think there is a difference between discrimination in hiring and discrimination after being hired and being employed, the latter of which happened to the employee - she was already working in her role when she was fired for her race.

[@hishamshahar]

why didn't you get it Amala? if you are not getting an interview because of your race. fine, it's not a big deal. it's not a big expectation for an interview anyway. but when you have a job and you have so much liability because you are confident that your job can pay that liability, then suddenly you are just being fired because of your race. that is not something simple that you can let go. For some people 3 months without a salary already can destroy their family because their liability is so significant. not all people live their life smoothly like you.

[@cvx5595]

We are here ladies and gentlemen, full circle of progress.

[@ffunkyddelice]

I feel like there is a big difference between not hiring someone based on race (equally reprehensible), and going out of your way to fire them from their job. When you have a family whose wellbeing relies on this income, being suddenly fired can become a huge problem. As for the amount, it might be a little excessive, but I tend to agree with the comment stating this is the amount needed to punish a company of this magnitude. $600k would be as significant as a mosquito bite in this case.

[@christinevenner183]

She doesn't realise that when a person is discriminated against and fired, they could possibly lose their home, car, or if they are paying for private schools for their kids, they might have to pull them out if they can't instantly find another job. And that is aside from any character assassination or career reputationonal damage. There can be a huge fallout from losing their job.

[@hyacinthlynch843]

Glad to see her get the reparations she's owed.

[@averagejoe8255]

Don’t worry, after the appeal, several zeros will be dropped and it will be 26 bucks.

[@Gl6619]

It will be a free Venti coffee for a year

[@SealedDocs]

Worked for a local government office for many years. After my return from my 2nd Cancer surgery, it was very clear they were trying to build up petty problems to fire me. I later found that 2 other employees were now making over 20,000 more than I was after being there a shorter period of time. I also found out according to my then job title I was being paid 15,000 less. Loyalty don’t mean anything anymore. No one looks at local government offices until it’s a huge problem & they have to. It’s how these local governments puts lots of dollars in their own pockets.

[@wackyjaci6869]

There's a difference of discrimination between one's race and gender (born that way), and one's choices that show their stability of character (like being an activist, questioning gender, being a Nazi, etc.). It's important to not mix the two, despite them sharing a definition umbrella.

[@chris55529]

I had a friend years ago who became obsessed with the idea of throwing a tangerine at Steven Seagal's head. This came out of nowhere, and I was like, "Whatever, dude." Obviously he wasn't going to actually do it, and people say weird things when they're high. Except he *did.* I still don't know how he was able to track down Steven Seagal, but he did, and he did indeed throw a tangerine at his head, and it was more or less a direct hit. Unfortunately for me, Seagal thought *I* was the one who did it, and long story short, I've never run so fast in my life. Turns out Seagal is kind of an asshole. Who knew?

[@SombreroPharoah]

No idea who seagul is, but you're friend is a legend. Living their dream, you have to admire the dedication. Why a tangerine specifically? Would an orange have done it, a lemon, lime?

[@ObjectiveEthics]

Best... most random comment on the internet!!

[@martymcfly88mph35]

Reddit moment

[@Relaxjack310]

The answer is an easy no, they should not hire or discriminate on the bases of inmutable, innate personal characteristics such as race. They should hire and fire based or merit and alignment with business mission and vision. That’s where choosing pronouns may be a different category, because is not immutable, it is a choice to use them, and maybe that falls into the merit and alignment category. Still in that case merit should trump everything. That’s my view.

[@donkey6906]

Yeah im pretty confused why it was even a discussion on weather its okay or not? Should be a cold hard no

[@AuntLoopy123]

I think the key is the punitive damages. The jury (or whoever made that choice) decided "We need to set a precedent to dissuade people from committing this crime, in the future. We need to set the price so high that even rich people don't look at it, and say, 'Oh, it only costs $2,000 to do this awful thing.' The fine is not supposed to be the price tag and I have heard too many people literally calling fines the price of doing crime. So, let's make the price tag so insanely high that they will actually view it as a FINE, and STOP DOING THIS CRAP!" So, yeah, I doubt that the victim actually asked for that much. I think it was the jury, made up of disgustipated people, who can't stand that attitude, any more. And I'll bet that some of them were black, Hispanic, and/or some other racial group, who have suffered from their own discrimination, but had enough sense to say, "Racism is bad, even if it's directed at a white person." That's my interpretation, and I sure hope I'm right. And if I'm right, and she didn't ASK for that much money, but the jury CHOSE to award it, in order to set the precedent, I hope that woman accepts it all (after paying her lawyer, her taxes, and her tithing, if she attends a tithe-type church), accepts it and uses it well.

[@KatintheHat40]

They were refused restroom access because THEY DIDN'T BUY ANYTHING and I don't care who you are or what you look like you can be refused restroom access at a business to which you are not a patron. He kept at his request, pissing them off enough to ask him to leave. He declined to leave, inciting a call for removal.

[@phonypeeps7020]

Certain political ideologies and races have a much higher likelihood to sue for race or gender based discrimination when any other employee would not have that avenue. Certain people come to work as a victim and are looking for a "violation" like IT was their job.

[@itsnotme7969]

That story about hiring a girl for the golf club business was quite flawed. Maybe hire an employee with knowledge about golf irrespective of gender…or maybe a female salesperson has other draws to the customers ie she’s attractive, approachable, can up sale effectively, and is business savvy. The idea that because the products are made for men doesn’t matter at all. Salespeople can sell whatever regardless of gender and if the product is made specifically for them 🙄 That was quite an eye roll analogy for why discrimination could be beneficial for the company.

[@fuzziebunnie83]

I think there’s a big difference between not hiring somebody by just putting their application in nope pile, and then firing an existing employee.

[@billlyell8322]

If you do not hire an employee because they will create a hostile work environment that is NOT discrimination. But if you fire an employee because their skin color or politicsl affiliation that is discrimination. As for her getting too much money, these corrupt companies will NOT stop doing this until they are financially hurt by their crimes.

[@seankelly328]

Great show, you guys always make me laugh, thanks

[@cristinaMartinez83247]

You know gender neutral bathrooms don’t sound that bad. If they’re single stall, maybe the men will finally realize what using girls restroom is like in any public setting.

[@griffisman]

I went to a club once that only had gender neutral washrooms, and I have to say it was more efficient

[@tianamarie989]

The only way you could fire someone in the instance of the golf clubs is if that manager made the employee aware theres a 90 day probation. But yes you could fire for any reason then. ETA: this is for PA which is an at will state. The business still needs to terminate you legally.

[@krad_eno9399]

Never forget, that those sums are never payed in the end, as they always go into a second round of litigation and then compromise around a much lower payoff, that has a non-disclosure agreement attached to it. These sums are therefore always bogus in all directions.

[@EdgePrecision]

Your discussion in the beginning of this video was about hiring practices. Didn't she already work for them. It is a totally different thing to treat your employee a way, then when you hire someone. Starbucks is a big company. To get their attention the punishment has to be big. It's not what the girl deserves in that case it's what the company's consequence for their actions.

[@s.miklaski2286]

Either it’s right all of the time or it’s wrong all of the time people don’t get to qualify by their own personal bias (ie my store). The reason it is law in the first place was all the “but but but” what ifs. I get what you are saying though and still disagree respectfully. There will always be people who will take advantage of policy but it’s there to protect individual rights. Love your videos, thank you.

[@Gilikemail]

You can't put a price on violations of your rights. Especially for a company as large as Starbucks that has teams of legal representatives at their disposal to make those decisions.

[@99999myk]

I'm glad this happened. I got in trouble at work for saying Christmas and since that happened, I have made sure to say it rather than 'holidays'

[@SHARKVADERS]

PRAGERU!!!!!

[@SlabbyPatty]

Also, would you rather Starbucks just get the 600k slap on the wrist and let them go on with their day like nothing happened? OR Would you like to see Starbucks actually take a big hit for what they did, which may cause them to pay attention to what they are doing, and try to punish them accordingly so they are less likely to continue with that behavior in the future?

[@FilthyBitchGunClub]

When I worked at Starbucks my manager was in his late 40's. It was his career. If he'd been fired, he would have needed to be covered. Still, I could live 12 lifetimes on that.

[@katiacomk]

The main thing that annoys me about this story is that a black person wouldn’t probably get this much. But the lady deserved so justice was served.

[@oliverbodnar]

Now she'll be able open her own coffee place.

[@jimbusmaximus4624]

The question is will she make you show your white privilege card for service?

[@kordei-7839]

You pander to a certain crowd

[@cryptouk7985]

Who doesn't, eedyut

[@kordei-7839]

@@cryptouk7985 The ppl who cry about “wokeness” everyday pretend they don’t

[@blueguise23]

Judges standardly award high punitives damages to send a message.

[@opheliadd]

The women fired from lululemon for trying to stop thieves should hire her attorney

[@FilthyBitchGunClub]

They want people to get mad so another payout like this ever happens again.