Bakery closes at 9. Customer comes at 9:06. Employees don't serve her. Employees fired.

[BGNO]

More at Tweet link.


"Two employees of a bakery in Northeast Portland were fired earlier this month for denying a black woman service because the business had closed.

“Back To Eden Bakery” released several public apologies and statements following the incident, before letting the employees go. In one Facebook post, the bakery’s co-owner wrote, “We are doing business in a gentrified neighborhood in a racist city within a racist state of a racist country.”

In one statement, “Back To Eden Bakery” says that according to its own surveillance video, a black woman named “Lillian”, who is well known in the area as a “professional equity activist”, entered at 9:06 p.m., after the bakery’s closing time. Employees had also turned off the “Open” sign, but several customers (all white) who had already ordered were still inside.Two other white women who went to the bakery two minutes before “Lillian”, and were also informed that the business was closed for the night.






Hollywood's Fresh Faces: Ella Purnell
The bakery says “Lillian” left the store briefly and began recording video.

The bakery’s statement says that even though it does not consider the employees to be racist and that they were following the business’s protocol of closing at 9 p.m., they were fired because “sometimes impact outweighs intent.” The bakery also says in the statement that the way the employees went about denying the woman service, “lacked sensitivity and understanding of the racial implications at work.”

 

[PosterToBeNamedLater]

You’d have to imagine if these people were to sue the bakery they’d have to win?


I mean this has to be termination with out cause

The owner says they were following company policy

 

[BGNO]

You’d have to imagine if these people were to sue the bakery they’d have to win?


I mean this has to be termination with out cause

The owner says they were following company policy

Something should happen. Its clear they didn't base it on race, they turned away two white women two minutes earlier while they were also closed.

Sure sounds like wrongful termination to me.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

It's a pretty cool vibe happening in this country. If you are black, you can do whatever the bleep you want anymore. #whiteguilt

 

[NTOP]

You’d have to imagine if these people were to sue the bakery they’d have to win?


I mean this has to be termination with out cause

The owner says they were following company policy

They should win easily. IF they have insurance coverage for such crapola, that insurance company will want no part of a trial. Perhaps this "Liliian" was doing this deliberately. If the owner thinks gentrification is bad, he can move to a worse part of town, not have to deal with the newcomers.

 

[Swervin27]

its Oregon, that's a different planet. normal laws don't fly in Oregon, if you are white, consider yourself guilty, of something, anything.

 

[Darth_VadEER]

What is a professional equity activist?

 

[NCPitt]

The employer is stupid...but not likely legally liable. Employment laws allow employers to fire people at will, meaning employees could be fired based on nothing. The only circumstances that change that law are contractual relationships such as union shops. These fired employees can sue but they would lose.

 

[Darth_VadEER]

Basically, if you upset a black person it's ground for termination.

 

[Swervin27]

I hope she sues the bakery and doesn't have to work again..

 

[BGNO]

Even *at will* employees have protections from wrongful dismissal.

As long as they followed policy,were consistent in their actions with both races,as it seems they were, this could be a problem for the owner.

Have the employees shown any evidence of wrong doing or discrimination in the past ?

How about other employees? Were these employees acting in a way consistent to the actions and expectations of their peers ?

I'll be stunned if an ambulance chaser hasn't already contacted them.
This is one of the flimsiest cases for proper dismissal I've ever seen based on what we know at this point.

We don't know what we dont know but I'll be curious.

 

[NTOP]

What is a professional equity activist?

Soros' hire. I don't think she's involved with the stock market.

 

[PosterToBeNamedLater]

The employer is stupid...but not likely legally liable. Employment laws allow employers to fire people at will, meaning employees could be fired based on nothing. The only circumstances that change that law are contractual relationships such as union shops. These fired employees can sue but they would lose.

I don’t think this is right at all.....

 

[MarshallGoldberg]

Even *at will* employees have protections from wrongful dismissal.

Not really, unless its a violation of a law like Civil Rights act or ADA or something. Firing someone for a dumb reason is not illegal. You can fire someone for not liking how they tie their shoes in an at-will workplace -- though that employee would almost definitely qualify for unemployment insurance at least (most states, the standard is usually willful misconduct.)

 

[MarshallGoldberg]

You’d have to imagine if these people were to sue the bakery they’d have to win?


I mean this has to be termination with out cause

The owner says they were following company policy

"Termination with out cause" is not a violation of the law for a private sector non union employee, unless they have some sort of individual contract with the employer. A bakery employee 99.9% of the time isn't Stallings, and doesn't have a contract.

At-will employment is a term used in U.S. labor law for contractual relationships in which an employee can be dismissed by an employer for any reason (that is, without having to establish "just cause" for termination), and without warning,[1] as long as the reason is not illegal (e.g. firing because of the employee's race or religion). When an employee is acknowledged as being hired "at will," courts deny the employee any claim for loss resulting from the dismissal. The rule is justified by its proponents on the basis that an employee may be similarly entitled to leave his or her job without reason or warning.[2] In contrast, the practice is seen as unjust by those who view the employment relationship as characterized by inequality of bargaining power.[3]

At-will employment gradually became the default rule under the common law of the employment contract in most U.S. states during the late 19th century, and was endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court during the Lochner era, when members of the U.S. judiciary consciously sought to prevent government regulation of labor markets.[4] Over the 20th century, many states modified the rule by adding an increasing number of exceptions, or by changing the default expectations in the employment contract altogether. In workplaces with a trade union recognized for purposes of collective bargaining, and in many public sector jobs, the normal standard for dismissal is that the employer must have a "just cause." Otherwise, subject to statutory rights (particularly the discrimination prohibitions under the Civil Rights Act), most states adhere to the general principle that employer and employee may contract for the dismissal protection they choose.[5] At-will employment remains controversial, and remains a central topic of debate in the study of law and economics, especially with regard to the macroeconomic efficiency of allowing employers to summarily and arbitrarily terminate employees.

 

[NCPitt]

I don’t think this is right at all.....

From employment.findlaw:

What does at-will employment mean?

Many people are surprised to learn, whether from an employment contract or employee handbook, that they are an "at-will employee." This means that your employer can terminate you at any time, for any cause -- with or without notice. An employer has every right to walk up to an at-will employee and say, "I don't like that your favorite color is purple. You're fired." There are very few, if any, remedies for you, unless your employer did something to violate your employee rights or broke labor laws.

 

[Darth_VadEER]

Not really, unless its a violation of a law like Civil Rights act or ADA or something. Firing someone for a dumb reason is not illegal. You can fire someone for not liking how they tie their shoes in an at-will workplace -- though that employee would almost definitely qualify for unemployment insurance at least (most states, the standard is usually willful misconduct.)

I agree...but if I were the employees I'd file a discrimination suit, saying they were terminated based on their skin color, which was a factor for the termination.

The owner saw a race issue and fired them because they were white and the other party was black.

 

[BGNO]

Lol, the definition of at-will is known

Now, is Oregon an at-will state is the question.
Im trying to find out.

 

[Darth_VadEER]

You have a publicized story, and from all accounts the employees acted reasonably, and the accusers and employer acted irrationally.

The driving factor was their race.

Judges like reasonable parties.

It's enough to drive a settlement.

 

[NTOP]

Not really, unless its a violation of a law like Civil Rights act or ADA or something. Firing someone for a dumb reason is not illegal. You can fire someone for not liking how they tie their shoes in an at-will workplace -- though that employee would almost definitely qualify for unemployment insurance at least (most states, the standard is usually willful misconduct.)

The owner's comments make it pretty clear he discriminated against his employees. The real impediment here will be the location. Portland is the prime example of "your brain on drugs". Nutso. I love the Oregon coast, though.

 

[BGNO]

This is from an Oregon Supreme Court opinion thats long but I'll try to break it down.

But it *appears* the Oregon Supreme Court has some exceptions to being a blanket *at will* state.

"Some plaintiff’s lawyers would argue that the at-will employment doctrine is so riddled with exceptions that it doesn’t really exist. And good employer defense attorneys will advise their clients that, while the doctrine still exists, every termination should be supported by clear, legitimate business reasons – and ideally with good documentation. But it is clear that no employee can have a reasonable expectation of continued employment, since he or she could be fired at any time. "

So we'll see. The employees have gone dark.

 

[NCPitt]

This is from an Oregon Supreme Court opinion thats long but I'll try to break it down.

But it *appears* the Oregon Supreme Court has some exceptions to being a blanket *at will* state.

"Some plaintiff’s lawyers would argue that the at-will employment doctrine is so riddled with exceptions that it doesn’t really exist. And good employer defense attorneys will advise their clients that, while the doctrine still exists, every termination should be supported by clear, legitimate business reasons – and ideally with good documentation. But it is clear that no employee can have a reasonable expectation of continued employment, since he or she could be fired at any time. "

So we'll see. The employees have gone dark.

Not sure how you can read exceptions into a statement that ends with "But it is clear that no employee can have a reasonable expectation of continued employment, since he or she could be fired at any time."

 

[BGNO]

Not sure how you can read exceptions into a statement that ends with "But it is clear that no employee can have a reasonable expectation of continued employment, since he or she could be fired at any time."

Yes, its a walking contradiction of itself.

The opinion says the at will doctrine is riddled with holes. All the documentation talk.
Then the last sentence as you stated.

Im not sure why they are advising employers to do all this documentation of work related reasons and so forth if the stated law says you can walk into the breakroom and start handing out pink slips.

Something is missing here. I'll see if my cousin can have one of his paralegals look into it further.

At this point it seems confusing.

The exceptions part is from the OSC but they don't list them that the doctrine is riddled with.

Its like yeah you can do it for no reason but you should be clearly documenting what those no reasons are.

 

[PosterToBeNamedLater]

Not sure how you can read exceptions into a statement that ends with "But it is clear that no employee can have a reasonable expectation of continued employment, since he or she could be fired at any time."

Yes, its a walking contradiction of itself.

The opinion says the at will doctrine is riddled with holes. All the documentation talk.
Then the last sentence as you stated.

Im not sure why they are advising employers to do all this documentation of work related reasons and so forth if the stated law says you can walk into the breakroom and start handing out pink slips.

Something is missing here. I'll see if my cousin can have one of his paralegals look into it further.

At this point it seems confusing.

Its like yeah you can do it for no reason but you should be clearly documenting what those no reasons are.

This is what I was alluding too. My understanding of at will employment makes me think that they are still entitled to basic labor laws.

By no means am I quoting labor law off the top of my head nor am I going to take the time to find it... but I believe an expectation of the length for the length of Work Day is a basic element... you could easily challenge that and drive a settlement

 

[BGNO]

Not sure how you can read exceptions into a statement that ends with "But it is clear that no employee can have a reasonable expectation of continued employment, since he or she could be fired at any time."

Yes, its a walking contradiction of itself.

The opinion says the at will doctrine is riddled with holes. All the documentation talk.
Then the last sentence as you stated.

Im not sure why they are advising employers to do all this documentation of work related reasons and so forth if the stated law says you can walk into the breakroom and start handing out pink slips.

Something is missing here. I'll see if my cousin can have one of his paralegals look into it further.

At this point it seems confusing.

Its like yeah you can do it for no reason but you should be clearly documenting what those no reasons are.

This is what I was alluding too. My understanding of at will employment makes me think that they are still entitled to basic labor laws.

By no means am I quoting labor law off the top of my head nor am I going to take the time to find it... but I believe an expectation of the length for the length of Work Day is a basic element... you could easily challenge that and drive a settlement

The work day thing is tricky but i get where you're going. Its usually week but that one is also chock full of exemptions

Something is missing.

It says you can just do it but you need to document well why you're doing it.

And according to the article the bakery has been all over the place with their reasoning if you read their rambling social media posts in the article.

Its curious to say the least.

 

[Swervin27]

its a shame that these companies throw their employees under the bus at the first sign of possible trouble from a (gasp), angry black customer. I mean, not even a meeting or a day or two to gather facts but immediate termination with the obligatory apology to anyone and everyone with brown skin.

Such a chicken sh*t society we live in now.

 

[HailtoPitt]

Based on the OP, something doesn't add up.

 

[HailtoPitt]

Based on the OP, something doesn't add up.

As I suspected...

3. Did Back to Eden fire two employees for simply following policy?

No. They were fired because they made a poor customer service decision to apply the 9pm closing time more stringently to a Black woman but not equally to the other white customers that were present. Back to Eden’s closing policy has always been “greet everyone who comes to our door warmly and make them feel welcome and appreciated”. Our employees did not do that.

4. Were the two white women that also entered after the Open sign was turned off served?

Yes. They were greeted warmly, told that we were closing but that we could happily serve them if they took their items to go. The Black woman that walked in one minute later was not given the same customer service. She was simply told over a crowd of white people enjoying their treats “we are closed. We can’t serve you”. After that, the two white customers were allowed to remain in the store casually chatting over the counter for an additional 10 minutes after all the other customers had left the premises. Camera footage shows all of this.
​

The real crime here, however, is that people were going to a vegan bakery. Oh the humanity.

 

[BGNO]

Based on the OP, something doesn't add up.

Yeah theres a missing piece here.

If you happened to look at the social media posts in the article the owners are all over the place on this.

The employees have been silent.

 

[BGNO]

But another commenter named Carlos Fernandez said he was in the bakery when the incident occurred and that it “wasn’t about race at all” as he heard the workers speaking to each other before the woman in question entered the bakery and agreeing “to stop taking customers and close.”

 

[Swervin27]

This reminds me of a time when I was about 21-22 and me and some friends walked into an adult establishment in bethel park at 2am.

Well the owner, an old lady told us that they were closed despite me seeing the silhouette of a lap dance behind a white sheet. Now this was a classy place, the Tennyson lodge, where only society’s best goes. Well I’m drunk, I call BS and knock over the partition and the old lady tries to slap me.

Next thing I know I wake up the next morning. No apologies were given, no lawsuits, no employee terminations. I let it go.

 

[HailtoPitt]

But another commenter named Carlos Fernandez said he was in the bakery when the incident occurred and that it “wasn’t about race at all” as he heard the workers speaking to each other before the woman in question entered the bakery and agreeing “to stop taking customers and close.”

I caught that. You deleted a post saying that the white customers ordered before closing. It sounds like they entered after closing, and were served.

 

[BGNO]

I caught that. You deleted a post saying that the white customers ordered before closing. It sounds like they entered after closing, and were served.

Yeah I deleted that because as i re read it i realized i was conflating the two issues and it may not have been accurate.

 

[HailtoPitt]

But another commenter named Carlos Fernandez said he was in the bakery when the incident occurred and that it “wasn’t about race at all” as he heard the workers speaking to each other before the woman in question entered the bakery and agreeing “to stop taking customers and close.”

Back to Eden’s closing policy has always been “greet everyone who comes to our door warmly and make them feel welcome and appreciated”. Our employees did not do that.

It sounds like the employees violated the policy. This is why you just lock the door.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Even *at will* employees have protections from wrongful dismissal.

As long as they followed policy,were consistent in their actions with both races,as it seems they were, this could be a problem for the owner.

Have the employees shown any evidence of wrong doing or discrimination in the past ?

How about other employees? Were these employees acting in a way consistent to the actions and expectations of their peers ?

I'll be stunned if an ambulance chaser hasn't already contacted them.
This is one of the flimsiest cases for proper dismissal I've ever seen based on what we know at this point.

We don't know what we dont know but I'll be curious.

It's a bakery worker. How much were they making? I am sure you can get another job at the same pay. Now if you are blackballed from future employment, well then you likely have a legit complaint for a suit. I think NCPitt is right though, you, especially if you are white and hetero, are employees at will and subject to dismissal pretty much on an employer's whim.

 

[BGNO]

But another commenter named Carlos Fernandez said he was in the bakery when the incident occurred and that it “wasn’t about race at all” as he heard the workers speaking to each other before the woman in question entered the bakery and agreeing “to stop taking customers and close.”

Back to Eden’s closing policy has always been “greet everyone who comes to our door warmly and make them feel welcome and appreciated”. Our employees did not do that.

It sounds like the employees violated the policy. This is why you just lock the door.

What's the policy on locking the doors at 9?

Do they allow that ?

Not being smart, i dont know.

They seem to be pretty liberal with the after hour service and the owner wanted Lillian served after entering at 9:06.
Did he say they should have locked the doors at 9?

Reading between the lines it seems policy is to turn off the *Open* sign at 9 which they supposedly did.
Theres a lot of questions and with only one side speaking its hard to get the complete picture.

 

[BGNO]

This is from KATU-TV.

*Two other white women who went to the bakery two minutes before “Lillian”, and were also informed that the business was closed for the night.*

Of course the owner is more than likely going to dispute that account.

But it doesn't say if they were served or not.
Lately im not one to take something on TV NEWS as gospel.

 

[HailtoPitt]

What's the policy on locking the doors at 9?

Do they allow that ?

Not being smart, i dont know.

They seem to be pretty liberal with the after hour service and the owner wanted Lillian served after entering at 9:06.
Did he say they should have locked the doors at 9?

Reading between the lines it seems policy is to turn off the *Open* sign at 9 which they supposedly did.
Theres a lot of questions and with only one side speaking its hard to get the complete picture.

I'm saying that many retail locations will lock the door at a certain time. Then when someone shows up they can't get in. You then let each customer out by unlocking the door and telling them "have a great night".

It sounds like this place has a more lax process. They turn off the sign and then stop serving people when they feel like it. It's going to be difficult for the fired employees to defend their actions of severing white customers after closing, but then telling a black customer one minute later that there were closed. That seems like poor customer service to me, independent of the race issue involved. I would probably be irritated if I were to come in at 9:04 and another customer came in at 9:03 and was served an already made pastry.

 

[Darth_VadEER]

Back to Eden’s closing policy has always been “greet everyone who comes to our door warmly and make them feel welcome and appreciated”. Our employees did not do that.

It sounds like the employees violated the policy. This is why you just lock the door.

Major CYA.

 

[BGNO]

I'm saying that many retail locations will lock the door at a certain time. Then when someone shows up they can't get in. You then let each customer out by unlocking the door and telling them "have a great night".

It sounds like this place has a more lax process. They turn off the sign and then stop serving people when they feel like it. It's going to be difficult for the fired employees to defend their actions of severing white customers after closing, but then telling a black customer one minute later that there were closed. That seems like poor customer service to me, independent of the race issue involved. I would probably be irritated if I were to come in at 9:04 and another customer came in at 9:03 and was served an already made pastry.

I get what you're saying but the report from KATU seems to bring in to question whether the white women were served.
Their account is the women were told they were closed also.
They must have got that from witnesses or the employees or the women themselves.

What isn't clear is whether the white women were turned away after being told they were closed or if they went ahead and served them anyway.