Should have been a sexual harassment lawsuit. Dude literally couldn’t hear the word “no” coming out of her mouth.
this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2023
348 points (98.3% liked)
News
23361 readers
3829 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I detest religion, but I absolutely believe it's wrong to violate someone's religious apparel. But you touched on what makes it even more vile. I knew there was something that made this feel worse and it's that a man felt secure violating the space of a woman. He should be charged for two violations. Thanks for articulating what I felt but couldn't quite find.
Ya, ripping off any clothing should be at least sexual harassment.
Ya, ripping off any clothing should be at least sexual ~~harassment~~ assault.
The federal government won't sue for sexual harassment, the employee would have to file a lawsuit herself.
Dude literally couldn’t hear the word “no” coming out of her mouth.
Oh he heard it, he just ignored it.
The employee complained to another supervisor that the incidents made her uncomfortable, but no further action was taken against the manager, the complaint said. One night during closing in August 2021, the manager allegedly reached out and pulled her hijab partially off her head.
That’s so infuriating - she reported the guy and nothing happened. Not until he tried to literally rip a piece of clothing off of her because he felt entitled to see her hair.
Forcefully removing an employee's clothes without consent. Yeah, seems like there should be consequences for that.
You would think a hijab is more sanitary than hair in a food service place.
There's no logic here. He wanted to control her and got pissed when it didn't work.
"Your hijab is not regulation. Here, have this much more exposed hairnet that does the same thing but not as well."
Chipotle's defense is probably going to be, "We're not responsible for the actions of individual franchise owners."
Fun (maybe?) fact, all Chipotle restaurants are corporate owned, they don't franchise.
Cool, didn't know that. That makes their court case stronger.
That's always been McDonalds defense.
"Oh, an employee took a shit in the deep fryer? We the McDonald's corporation will write a strong letter denouncing shitting in the fryer and will forward it to the franchise owner. Now go and eat our other shit."
Which, honestly, is understandable assuming they also take away the person's franchise rights. I doubt corporate policy is to have people remove hijabs.