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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
@Enigma
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!