Starbucks Kicked Out Police Officers Because Customers ‘Did Not Feel Safe’

Written By BlabberBuzz | Source: TheFederalistpapers | Saturday, 06 July 2019 09:49

We live in a time where the heroes are treated as the villains and the villains are treated as the heroes and many think it is normal.

That is what happened to police officers in Tempe, Arizona when they were asked to leave a Starbucks because customers complained.

The customers informed Starbucks management that they did not “feel safe” with the police officers in the establishment, Fox News reported.

Five officers were drinking coffee at the Starbucks location prior to their shift beginning when a barista asked them to move out of the complaining customer’s line of sight or else leave, the Tempe Officers Association wrote in a series of Twitter messages.

Rob Ferraro, president of the police union, told FOX 10 of Phoenix that such treatment of police officers seems to be happening more often these days.

WATCH: ISIS-K TAKES OVER AFGHANISTAN AS TALIBAN STRUGGLES

WATCH: ISIS-K TAKES OVER AFGHANISTAN AS TALIBAN STRUGGLES

“It’s become accepted to not trust or to see police and think that we’re not here to serve you, and again, it goes back to — we take great pride of the level of customer service we provide to citizens, he said.

WATCH: POMPEO WARNS AMERICAN ALLIES THAT BIDEN MIGHT NOT STEP UP IN TIME OF NEED

WATCH: POMPEO WARNS AMERICAN ALLIES THAT BIDEN MIGHT NOT STEP UP IN TIME OF NEED

“And to be looked at as feeling unsafe when you have law enforcement around you is somewhat perplexing to me,” he said.

“Don’t appreciate @Starbucks asking our #Tempe cops to leave your establishment on the #4thofjuly2019. Several of those cops are #veterans who fought for this country! #ZeroRespect,” the union said.

“A statement from the TOA on The July 4th incident and Starbucks’ treatment of police officers: Yesterday, on Independence Day, six Tempe police officers stopped by the Starbucks at Scottsdale Road and McKellips for coffee.

TEXAS ABORTION BAN GETS ANOTHER SHOT FROM COURT OF APPEALS

TEXAS ABORTION BAN GETS ANOTHER SHOT FROM COURT OF APPEALS

“The officers paid for their drinks and stood together having a cup of coffee before their long 4th of July shift.

“They were approached by a barista, who knew one of the officers by name, because he is a regular at that location. The barista said that a customer “did not feel safe” because of the police presence.

COURT PACKING ISSUES FORCE CONSERVATIVES OFF BIDEN COMMITTEE

COURT PACKING ISSUES FORCE CONSERVATIVES OFF BIDEN COMMITTEE

“The barista asked the officers to move out of the customer’s line of sight or to leave. Disappointed, the officers did in fact leave.

“This treatment of public safety workers could not be more disheartening. While the barista was polite, making such a request at all was offensive.

“Unfortunately, such treatment has become all too common in 2019. We know this is not a national policy at Starbucks Corporate and we look forward to working collaboratively with them on this important dialogue,” it said.

DESANTIS HAS A LAWSUIT READY FOR BIDEN

DESANTIS HAS A LAWSUIT READY FOR BIDEN

Advertisement - story continues below

Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers' newsfeeds and is instead promoting mainstream media sources. When you share to your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you.

Starbucks Accused of Exposing Customers to Poisonous Pesticide

This article was sourced from DailyBeastTrouble is once again brewing for Starbucks, the global coffee empire that Seattle billionaire Howard Schultz—who recently flirted with running for president before backing off—spent three decades building into a highly-caffeinated behemoth.

On Tuesday, the iconic company—which claims more than $22 billion in annual revenue and more than 27,500 outlets in nearly 80 countries—was slapped with two lawsuits alleging that thousands of customers who patronize Starbucks’ 100-odd Manhattan stores have been exposed to a potentially lethal pesticide.

The lawsuits represent yet another public relations challenge for a company that has aggressively promoted, under Schultz’s leadership, a socially conscious, environmentally-friendly corporate image. In April 2018, Starbucks suffered a PR  catastrophe when the white manager of a Philadelphia store called the cops on two African-American men who were simply waiting there quietly for a business meeting, resulting in their arrest and temporary jailing. 

Now, a class-action lawsuit filed by 10 Starbucks customers in New York Supreme Court claims that “Starbucks stores throughout Manhattan have for many years been permeated with a toxic pesticide called Dichlorvos (2,2-dichlorovinyl dimethyl phosphate or ‘DDVP’), which is highly poisonous and completely unfit for use in proximity to food, beverages and people.

“Starbucks knows about the poisonous qualities of DDVP and knows that it has been used in Starbucks’ stores throughout Manhattan,” the lawsuit adds, “but has neither taken appropriate action to stop its use nor informed customers about the dangerous conditions to which they have been unwittingly being exposed.”

The lawsuit continues: “DDVP is an active ingredient emitted into the air by products called ‘No-Pest Strips,’ which are only intended to be used in unoccupied structures to rid such structures of vermin, bugs and insects. However, they are explicitly not to be used anywhere human beings are present, and especially in situations where the pesticide could come into contact with food and/or drinks. The label on these products clearly warns: ‘Do not use in the food/feed areas of food/feed processing or food/feed manufacturing or food/feed service establishments,’ and ‘Do not use in kitchens, restaurants or areas where food is prepared or served.’”

The federal government’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says prolonged exposure to DDVP—according to the lawsuit—can cause “loss of bladder control, muscle tremors, labored breathing, nausea, anxiety, diarrhea, muscle weakness, convulsions and paralysis, and that more severe exposure can even result in coma, inability to breathe and death.”

In an email to The Daily Beast, a Starbucks spokesperson dismissed the class-action suit and a second lawsuit filed in federal court by a fired Starbucks store manager and two of the coffee company’s extermination contractors—who claim Starbucks executives retaliated after they repeatedly warned of the pesticide dangers—as a bogus attempt to shake the company down.  

“The lawsuits filed by the plaintiffs and their attorneys lack merit and are an attempt to incite public fear for their own financial gain,” the Starbucks spokesperson emailed. “We go to great lengths to ensure the safety of our partners [the Starbucks term for ‘employees’] and customers, and we are confident they have not been put at risk. Starbucks takes the concerns of its partners very seriously and does not take action or retaliate against partners who express them.”

The federal lawsuit claims that “Starbucks stores located throughout Manhattan…continuously failed to take necessary or adequate measures to ensure their cleanliness and instead recklessly hid hazardous pesticides throughout their stores, including in close proximity to food and food preparation areas…

“Moreover, this dangerous misconduct occurred systematically and with the apparent knowledge and approval of Starbucks Corporate Leadership—despite repeated warnings that such conduct was dangerous and unlawful,” the federal lawsuit asserts.

Contrary to the allegations in the two lawsuits, however, a Starbucks insider claimed that the No-Pest Strips were “immediately removed” from the Manhattan stores on orders from management “upon hearing reports that employees had used a product that violated company guidelines.”

No dates for the removal were provided, however, and attorneys for the plaintiffs speculated to The Daily Beast that Starbucks’ management ordered that the strips be gotten rid of only over the past month when the litigation was being organized.

The Starbucks spokesperson, meanwhile, said outside experts working for the company had declared that the No-Pest Strips had not posed a health hazard.

“I can confirm that we consulted with experts who concluded that based on how the strips were used in stores, employees and customers were not exposed to health risk,” the spokesperson emailed. Asked for the names and credentials of these experts, the spokesperson said: “Due to the impending litigation, I unfortunately cannot share further details right now.”

Plaintiffs’ attorney Ariel Graff, who represents fired Starbucks store manager Rafael Fox (who claims he was wrongfully terminated after complaining repeatedly about the alleged health hazards) and pesticide control experts Paul D’Auria and Jill Shwiner, emailed The Daily Beast that his clients “reported the dangers directly on more than a dozen different occasions, in writing, to the managers responsible for Manhattan stores who could have easily ended the practice (but chose not to).”

Graff added: “If Starbucks is claiming to have anonymous internal experts who are secretly ‘authorizing’ it to use what are indisputably hazardous pesticides in an illegal manner in virtually all of its Manhattan stores for a period of years—that’s something the public ought to know because its utterly outrageous.”

“I’m proud to represent my clients for insisting that this can’t disappear into the shadows at the expense of untold tens of thousands of unsuspecting customers, workers, and visitors who never agreed to expose themselves to an invisible poison gas when they step inside for a cup of coffee,” Graff continued.

Attorney David Gottlieb, who is representing the Starbucks customers in the class-action lawsuit, said that while the current litigation involves only the Manhattan stores, it could expand to New York’s four other boroughs and even Starbucks stores nationwide, depending on the results of the discovery process.

This article was sourced from TheFederalistpapers

Start your own discussion or comment on someone else's

Start your own discussion or comment on someone else's

Start your own discussion or comment on someone else's

Start your own discussion or comment on someone else's

Start your own discussion or comment on someone else's

Start your own discussion or comment on someone else's

Start your own discussion or comment on someone else's

Start your own discussion or comment on someone else's

Start your own discussion or comment on someone else's

Start your own discussion or comment on someone else's

Start your own discussion or comment on someone else's

Start your own discussion or comment on someone else's

Start your own discussion or comment on someone else's

Start your own discussion or comment on someone else's

Start your own discussion or comment on someone else's

Start your own discussion or comment on someone else's

Start your own discussion or comment on someone else's