The Food Thread

[O Really]

Perhaps bigot Evins' "public and private encouragement of discriminatory practices against female and minority employees, practices which violated the company's own non-discrimination policy," are harder to justify. This was the 1990s, not the 1950s.

Evins was 15 in 1950. A real life 1950's product.
But hey, I'm not really defending what he did or didn't do. I'm just saying it's not very relevant to today's company.

[O Really]

So we had been by this place many times and usually joked about their (imaginary) menu that would consist of Yak stew, Roast Yak, Yak soup, Yak on a stick...yada. Nope. It was delicious and a very unusual experience.

https://himalayansherpacuisine.com/

Authentic Sherpa Cuisine
Hearty and flavorful dishes made with locally sourced ingredients form signature dishes including momos, thukpa, yak meat dishes, and Sherpa bread; the menu curated to showcase the best of Sherpa cuisine

[O Really]

Further explanation on chains and me

I’ll always try a new chain - once, maybe as often as 3 or 4 times, but I try to support local no matter where I am. Local is usually so much better is so many ways that don’t have anything to do with food.

Chain restaurants and big box stores aren't allowed west of the 5 from Oceanside all the way past La Jolla. Of course, that means that you get some chain clutter around the exits. Saturday is a local business promotion that includes getting fed drinks while you shop.

https://www.mainstreetoceanside.com/blank-1

[Vrede too]

Evins was 15 in 1950. A real life 1950's product.
But hey, I'm not really defending what he did or didn't do. I'm just saying it's not very relevant to today's company.

Mostly agreed. He set a tone and created a culture, but he's been dead over a decade and was ousted from company control years before that. I wonder how many non-hetero White male franchisees there are even today. I was just responding to the "good people" claim. However,

I was prepared to give CB a pass and not post until I saw that some of the complaints, especially worker abuses, are from within the past 3 years.

Some corporates seem to do better than others. There should be a zero tolerance policy with severe consequences for some abuses.

That matters more to me in 2023.

[O Really]

Even so, what might be considered "good people" in, say, 1970 isn't the same as now. Most gay people were closeted, discrimination/distain for them was the norm. Maybe in your group, but for the most part not respecting gays wouldn't be disqualifying as "good people." It would be another 12 years before the first non-discrimination law protected sexual orientation passed in Wisconsin, and another 10ish years after that before Massachusetts.

It doesn't particularly bother me that a guy born in 1935 doesn't understand, agree with, or support gay rights in 1970-80ish. What bothers me is when I run into some fool who was born well after the CRA and never in his life has it been legal or socially acceptable to discriminate and somehow he still manages to think it's OK to pat the assistant's ass and compliment her boobs.

[billy.pilgrim]

Even so, what might be considered "good people" in, say, 1970 isn't the same as now. Most gay people were closeted, discrimination/distain for them was the norm. Maybe in your group, but for the most part not respecting gays wouldn't be disqualifying as "good people." It would be another 12 years before the first non-discrimination law protected sexual orientation passed in Wisconsin, and another 10ish years after that before Massachusetts.

It doesn't particularly bother me that a guy born in 1935 doesn't understand, agree with, or support gay rights in 1970-80ish. What bothers me is when I run into some fool who was born well after the CRA and never in his life has it been legal or socially acceptable to discriminate and somehow he still manages to think it's OK to pat the assistant's ass and compliment her boobs.

Bingo.

And
Sorry vrede, but 1970 me didn’t see the guy he later showed to be.
Wikipedia apparently left out the part about his fixing the barn for her to sell antiques. It was in the NE corner of I-40 and hwy 109. It was the only business there at the time. I’ve been there.
I don’t know anything about his oil business, but it doesn’t surprise me. Most small farmers usually have a job to support their farm.

[billy.pilgrim]

Further explanation on chains and me

I’ll always try a new chain - once, maybe as often as 3 or 4 times, but I try to support local no matter where I am. Local is usually so much better is so many ways that don’t have anything to do with food.

Chain restaurants and big box stores aren't allowed west of the 5 from Oceanside all the way past La Jolla. Of course, that means that you get some chain clutter around the exits. Saturday is a local business promotion that includes getting fed drinks while you shop.

https://www.mainstreetoceanside.com/blank-1

As it should be.

[Vrede too]

Even so, what might be considered "good people" in, say, 1970 isn't the same as now. Most gay people were closeted, discrimination/distain for them was the norm. Maybe in your group, but for the most part not respecting gays wouldn't be disqualifying as "good people." It would be another 12 years before the first non-discrimination law protected sexual orientation passed in Wisconsin, and another 10ish years after that before Massachusetts.

It doesn't particularly bother me that a guy born in 1935 doesn't understand, agree with, or support gay rights in 1970-80ish. What bothers me is when I run into some fool who was born well after the CRA and never in his life has it been legal or socially acceptable to discriminate and somehow he still manages to think it's OK to pat the assistant's ass and compliment her boobs.

"1970", "1970-80ish"? Evins was outed for his homophobic policies in the early 1990s. I agree that it was more the norm then, but it was already odious enough to society that CB corporate was forced to back down.

He wasn't so old that "discriminatory practices against female and minority employees" IN THE 1990s were excusable. Decent America righteously condemned him for being bad people.

Bingo.

And
Sorry vrede, but 1970 me didn’t see the guy he later showed to be.
Wikipedia apparently left out the part about his fixing the barn for her to sell antiques. It was in the NE corner of I-40 and hwy 109. It was the only business there at the time. I’ve been there.
I don’t know anything about his oil business, but it doesn’t surprise me. Most small farmers usually have a job to support their farm.

Wiki makes it sound like Shell Oil was his primary gig, but

I wonder why neither he nor his family have corrected Wiki to what you recall.

[billy.pilgrim]

Even so, what might be considered "good people" in, say, 1970 isn't the same as now. Most gay people were closeted, discrimination/distain for them was the norm. Maybe in your group, but for the most part not respecting gays wouldn't be disqualifying as "good people." It would be another 12 years before the first non-discrimination law protected sexual orientation passed in Wisconsin, and another 10ish years after that before Massachusetts.

It doesn't particularly bother me that a guy born in 1935 doesn't understand, agree with, or support gay rights in 1970-80ish. What bothers me is when I run into some fool who was born well after the CRA and never in his life has it been legal or socially acceptable to discriminate and somehow he still manages to think it's OK to pat the assistant's ass and compliment her boobs.

"1970", "1970-80ish"? Evins was outed for his homophobic policies in the early 1990s. I agree that it was more the norm then, but it was already odious enough to society that CB corporate was forced to back down.

He wasn't so old that "discriminatory practices against female and minority employees" IN THE 1990s were excusable. Decent America righteously condemned him for being bad people.

Bingo.

And
Sorry vrede, but 1970 me didn’t see the guy he later showed to be.
Wikipedia apparently left out the part about his fixing the barn for her to sell antiques. It was in the NE corner of I-40 and hwy 109. It was the only business there at the time. I’ve been there.
I don’t know anything about his oil business, but it doesn’t surprise me. Most small farmers usually have a job to support their farm.

Wiki makes it sound like Shell Oil was his primary gig, but

I wonder why neither he nor his family have corrected Wiki to what you recall.

Wiki could easily be right. So many “farmers” have jobs non-farmers would call more important. I know that the son had some sort of job where he wore a suit, but he was home by 3 and doing farm work.

[O Really]

"1970", "1970-80ish"? Evins was outed for his homophobic policies in the early 1990s. I agree that it was more the norm then, but it was already odious enough to society that CB corporate was forced to back down.

Many progressive companies were adding "sexual orientation" to their non-discrimination policies in the early 90's but it wasn't a requirement federally or in most states. We were advising clients to think about that seriously before adding the liability of something they could be sued over despite having no legal obligation to do it.

IMNVHO, it should be more to Cracker Barrel's credit that they moved away somewhat forcibly from Evins' outdated and economically harmful policies in early 90's than something of criticism.

I see Cracker Barrel's transgressions as being vastly different from the sad tale of Denny's

By Stephen Labaton
May 25, 1994
Denny's Restaurants to Pay $54 Million in Race Bias Suits
Credit...The New York Times Archives

Denny's, a national restaurant chain, agreed today to pay more than $54 million to settle lawsuits filed by thousands of black customers who had been refused service or had been forced to wait longer or pay more than white customers.

The new head of the civil rights division of the Justice Department, Deval L. Patrick, said it was the largest and broadest settlement under the Federal public-accommodation laws. Those laws were adopted more than 30 years ago to end segregation in restaurants and other places that serve the public.

The agreement, worked out among Government lawyers and lawyers representing Denny's and its customers, ended Federal class-action lawsuits in Baltimore and in San Jose, Calif., and a complaint in Virginia. Those actions were filed on behalf of thousands of black customers who had asserted that Denny's violated their civil rights by treating them rudely and by routinely giving preferential treatment to whites.

In one instance, a black Federal judge from Houston and his wife who had been traveling for 18 hours said they were forced to wait at a Denny's in Yreka, Calif., for almost an hour as white teen-agers taunted them and referred to them as "niggers."

In another case, six black Secret Service agents assigned to President Clinton's detail were refused a table at a Denny's in Annapolis. Md., while their white Secret Service colleagues were seated and served.

For more than three years Denny's, a subsidiary of Flagstar Companies of Spartanburg, S.C., has been the target of growing complaints that its restaurants segregated blacks or required them to pre-pay or make various payments not required of white patrons.

The company denied that it had a policy of discrimination, but it nonetheless promised to take immediate steps to prevent shabby treatment of its black customers.

Some executives said they feared the publicity had begun to discourage blacks, who represent 10 percent of the chain's customers, from eating at the 1,500 Denny's restaurants. In all, more than 4,300 claims were filed as part of the class-action suits asserting that the company had treated black customers worse than whites.

Under today's settlement, how much each customer receives from Denny's will depend on how many people come forward within the next few months.

In addition to the cash payment and the promise to improve its treatment of blacks, the company agreed to hire Sharon Lybeck Hartmann, a Los Angeles lawyer with a background in civil rights, to enforce the consent decree and to monitor any civil rights problems that may arise. It also promised to begin a program in which blacks posing as customers would investigate whether Denny's restaurants were discriminating.

"With today's action, the message is clear: there will be a high price to pay for unlawful indignities, and the Justice Department will exact that price wherever the law is violated," Mr. Patrick said. "Unfair standards employed by restaurants must no longer be standard fare."

The settlements also suggested that after more than a year without a leader, the civil rights division at the Justice Department may be beginning a more active period. The division suffered a bruising political setback when President Clinton withdrew the nomination of Lani Guinier last year to head the division. Mr. Clinton left the position vacant for the first 15 months of his Administration.

Through much of the last year, the division also faced criticism from New York Democrats and Republicans for its handling of its investigation into the 1991 disturbances in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn.

Moreover, today's settlements reflected a revived partnership between civil rights and Government lawyers that had disappeared during the Reagan and Bush Administrations.

The two Federal suits settled today had been filed under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is known as the Public Accommodations Act. The law was often used in the 1960's and 70's to eliminate lingering segregation problems, but in the last decade it has not been widely cited.

Last year another restaurant chain, Shoney's, agreed to pay $105 million to thousands of black employees and job applicants to settle a discrimination case, but that case did not involve customers or the public-accommodations law.

Lawyers for some of the black customers said today that they had begun to uncover evidence that the thousands of cases were not random but reflected a pervasive attitude of discrimination that permeated Denny's management.

"We believe that there was, at the company, an attitude that went into the management level, but we don't know exactly how high," said John Relman, a lawyer for the Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights. "This attitude at the company, at the management level and working its way down, had the effect of causing discriminatory attitudes going down to the lowest levels of the company." Training to Deal WIth Blacks

Another lawyer, Mari Mayeda, said that during pretrial fact-finding a former manager had testified about training sessions in which managers were told how to deal with what was considered too many blacks in a restaurant at one time. Ms. Mayeda said the company's code word for such occasions was a "blackout."

But Jerome J. Richardson, the chairman and chief executive of Flagstar, denied that there was any policy to discriminate against blacks.

"These settlements are not an admission that Denny's has had a policy or practice of discrimination against African Americans," he said. At a news conference in Washington, he sought to portray the incidents as random and not part of a corporate strategy.

"We serve one million customers a day at Denny's and we have 40,000 employees," Mr. Richardson said. "It would be naive on my part to say that customers are always satisfied."

Within the last year, Mr. Richardson said, the company has taken significant steps to prevent discrimination at its restaurants, including training and random checking. It has also hired Norman J. Hill, a black executive, to head its human resources department.

But the portrait of the chain presented by some customers today suggested that it had been plagued by racial problems.

Kristina Ridgeway was 17 years old when she walked into a Denny's in San Jose in 1991 with 17 other teen-agers after attending a college forum sponsored by the San Jose chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. The restaurant demanded a cover charge in addition to a prepayment for the meal, even though several white classmates did not have to make such payments.

"I was very upset," Ms. Ridgeway said. "Both my parents are from the South and they had to grow up with this kind of thing, and they would always tell me that I wouldn't have to deal with stuff like this."

In another case in California, Rachel Thompson recalled how Denny's offered a free meal for anyone on a birthday and how she had brought proof of her 13th birthday to a family gathering in Vallejo. The restaurant refused to accept a baptismal certificate with Rachel's date of birth on it.

"They just said that wasn't enough and made a big scene," she said. "I felt embarrassed. It was humiliating because other families in there were looking at us, and I guess they thought we were some kind of bad criminals."

And some incidents occurred as recently as last year, even as the company was trying to resolve accusations of discrimination.

In April 1993, Denny's agreed as part of a consent decree to settle a Federal suit in California to take steps to end discrimination. But the same day it entered that consent decree, the Denny's in Annapolis refused to serve the six black Secret Service agents. They later sued in Federal court in Baltimore, and the case in California was reopened.

Federal judges in Baltimore and San Jose must approve the settlement before it takes effect, a process that lawyers said should be completed this summer.

Once approved, the customers will receive $46 million and their lawyers will share another $8.7 million. Any money left over will be donated to the United Negro College Fund and to other nonprofit organizations dedicated to furthering civil rights.

The case should not have a big effect on Flagstar's bottom line. Denny's had revenues of $1.53 billion in 1993, and the parent company, Flagstar, owns more than 500 Hardee's franchises, as well as as the El Pollo Loco and Quincy's Family Steakhouse chains.

In over-the-counter trading, the stock of Flagstar closed today at $9.50, down 37.5 cents in light trading.

Last July, Denny's reached an agreement with the N.A.A.C.P. to spend $1 billion in jobs and contracts for minorities over seven years. The company now has no franchises owned by a black, although an executive said 28 applications are "in the final stages of the review process."

[Vrede too]

Many progressive companies were adding "sexual orientation" to their non-discrimination policies in the early 90's but it wasn't a requirement federally or in most states. We were advising clients to think about that seriously before adding the liability of something they could be sued over despite having no legal obligation to do it.

You were advising clients to NOT do the right thing? Fuckin' lawyers.

IMNVHO, it should be more to Cracker Barrel's credit that they moved away somewhat forcibly from Evins' outdated and economically harmful policies in early 90's than something of criticism.

Again, I mostly don't hold Evins' early 90s hatefulness against CB. I've mostly engaged because billy.pilgrim has personal experience with the Evins family that differs somewhat from the original article and Wiki.

Still, I would be interested in the legacy as perhaps best IDed by the number of non-hetero, non-White, non-male franchisees. Cracker Barrel doesn't say who it is at the Flat Rock (Hendersonville) location, and I'm not sure how one looks it up.

I see Cracker Barrel's transgressions as being vastly different from the sad tale of Denny's

Agreed.

I wonder if someone maintains a database of current employee/customer complaints and lawsuits at chain restaurants.

[O Really]

Many progressive companies were adding "sexual orientation" to their non-discrimination policies in the early 90's but it wasn't a requirement federally or in most states. We were advising clients to think about that seriously before adding the liability of something they could be sued over despite having no legal obligation to do it.

You were advising clients to NOT do the right thing? Fuckin' lawyers.

Agreed.

I wonder if someone maintains a database of current employee/customer complaints and lawsuits at chain restaurants.

"The right thing" from some perspectives is what doesn't unnecessarily increase liability. We didn't tell the client they couldn't include it, we just wanted to make sure they knew the whole story. Actually, most of the time I advised a much simpler policy statement than most companies used where they have this laundry list of of how they don't discriminate. I liked "we do not unlawfully discriminate in any aspect of employment, and we comply with all federal, state, and local non-discrimination requirements" or something similar.

[Vrede too]

You were advising clients to NOT do the right thing? Fuckin' lawyers.

"The right thing" from some perspectives is what doesn't unnecessarily increase liability. We didn't tell the client they couldn't include it, we just wanted to make sure they knew the whole story. Actually, most of the time I advised a much simpler policy statement than most companies used where they have this laundry list of of how they don't discriminate. I liked "we do not unlawfully discriminate in any aspect of employment, and we comply with all federal, state, and local non-discrimination requirements" or something similar.

That's my point. As you pointed out, employer discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identification was perfectly legal in most states until 2020! Meanwhile, you were advising clients to NOT exhibit leadership towards a better America because it MIGHT make their bigoted behavior more vulnerable if it contradicted explicit company policy.

[O Really]

That's my point. As you pointed out, employer discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identification was perfectly legal in most states until 2020! Meanwhile, you were advising clients to NOT exhibit leadership towards a better America because it MIGHT make their bigoted behavior more vulnerable if it contradicted explicit company policy.

Not my job to make them or keep them from "exhibiting leadership towards a better America." It's my job to make sure they understand the risks, if any, of that leadership and to make decisions in their best interest. I don't know about others, but most of my clients didn't mind the risk because they thought they didn't discriminate. And most didn't. Mostly. A long time ago before it was fashionable one company had an early version transgender who went from Dennis to Denise. It was a steel industry company and there were some who referred to "him/her" as "Dennis/Denise" but there wasn't any overt cruelty. Denise turned out quite attractive, and didn't help her situation much with her clothing choices, but it worked out much better than one might have thought back before anybody had any protective laws for her.

[O Really]

It occurred to me that maybe some may remember the 90's with rose colored glasses.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/briangalindo/p ... 2FTrending

[Vrede too]

It occurred to me that maybe some may remember the 90's with rose colored glasses.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/briangalindo/p ... e-was-like

As I expected not one mention of Evins' racism being acceptable.

[billy.pilgrim]

It occurred to me that maybe some may remember the 90's with rose colored glasses.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/briangalindo/p ... e-was-like

As I expected not one mention of Evins' racism being acceptable.

Strange. There was still plenty of acceptable racism in the 90s.

[GoCubsGo]

It occurred to me that maybe some may remember the 90's with rose colored glasses.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/briangalindo/p ... 2FTrending

Another 1200 comments on reddit.

https://hg.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comme ... s_changed/

[Vrede too]

It occurred to me that maybe some may remember the 90's with rose colored glasses.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/briangalindo/p ... e-was-like

As I expected not one mention of Evins' racism being acceptable.

Strange. There was still plenty of acceptable racism in the 90s.

Socially yes, as there sadly still is today, and even in some public expression like Evins', but as official company policy it was a pretty big no-no by the 90s, not to mention being illegal since the 1960s. Hence, it contributed to Evins' eventual ouster.

[Vrede too]

https://www.newsweek.com/mcdonalds-sign ... nd-1847020

... "Album cover material," said aehooo, while Donizetti1 joked: "The coffee really is too hot, I guess."

"This goes hard, images for the revolution," added MooronicMuppet.

Askewboka asked: "Which sign of the mcpocalypse is this?" while Golden-Grams joked that it was "McJudgement Day."

... "Does anyone have any McMarshmallows?" joked CannabisaurusRex401, while canbrinor said: "New desktop background just dropped." ...