| Author | Post |
|---|
Highmaintanece Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 7 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 11th, 2008 07:27 pm |
|
This young lady should not only have gotten the money but she should get a medal for standing up for what is right. I've worked in positions over the years including a bar scene where that type of stuff goes on eveyday and no one says a word. I can remember working for a company that built the bypass and being sexually harrased by my superintendent and how it was just swept under the table and because I didn't give into his demand was knocked out of recieving scale pay for the job I was doing. So I hope she holds her head up high and snubs them all, hopefully she will put that money to good use and never have to work in that enviroment again. You Go Girl!!! Guess we're not in little ole Dover anymore are we?  
|
4thekids Member

|
Posted: Sat Nov 8th, 2008 08:26 pm |
|
excoworker wrote: WOW!! I used to work with this girl, and although she was fun to work with and to have drinks with after work ... I don't believe for one second that she should have been awarded 100K. When I worked with her she was quite the partier, flirt and yes, "whiner." I don't know what else to say except WOW.
Maybe you need to come forward and tell the truth... That is the right thing to do isn't it!
|
stevem Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 90 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 8th, 2008 07:39 pm |
|
| Somehow from what Ive read I dont believe a word of this girls story. I think her fiancee found out about her behavior and needed someone to blame. She sues for sexual harrasment but is showing off a peircing on her privates? She said she was told to wear revealing attire. Thats funny because the dozens upon dozens of times ive been there, Ive never seen the employees wearing anything but pretty conservative polo shirts and slacks. Ive also never seen any of them acting innappropriate. Im just not buying it. I hope she doesnt see a dime.
|
HCparent5years Member

| Joined: | Tue Jun 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 23 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 7th, 2008 10:37 pm |
|
Last edited on Fri Nov 7th, 2008 10:38 pm by HCparent5years
|
excoworker Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 12:35 am |
|
| WOW!! I used to work with this girl, and although she was fun to work with and to have drinks with after work ... I don't believe for one second that she should have been awarded 100K. When I worked with her she was quite the partier, flirt and yes, "whiner." I don't know what else to say except WOW.
|
Hartlyboy Member

|
Posted: Fri Sep 26th, 2008 03:38 pm |
|
| This whole sorid tale, regardless of the merits of the complaintant's case, shows a real lack of management understanding of the need to enforce workplace rules that don't allow you to get your sorry butt sued.
|
Karma21 Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 25th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 26th, 2008 05:23 am |
|
Violet, I believe Patron was quoting curious with the complainer comment.
I think it is a shame how much of the actual case was not described in any of the 3 articles. I have read the Summary Judgement that was filed prior to the trial and I must say that the articles lead to much speculation. However, once the opinion of the case is finalized by the judge, everything should fall into place and answer all of our questions.
Just wanted to shed some light on what I've read from other sources. From what I understand:
1. Shannon did complain to management, and when she did, she was told that her hours would be reduced. When she stated that was unfair, she was told that if she didn't like it, she could leave. (Verified by Mr. Primos's comment to the Newspaper).
2. Like Violet states, Shannon did not participate in "body shots" or shots from the crotch area. Those around her were. In addition, it is my understanding that after multiple times of being asked to reveal her piercing, she felt pressured and she wasn't bragging or boasting about it. These are just a few of the numerous issues that were presented, but the big ones the articles focus on. Additionally, the summary states that Lobby House did not deny the allegations, but focused on the seriousness of them. Therefore, we are led to believe that these things probably did happen.
3. As a business professional, I would assume that if she was a "constant complainer" she would have been fired a long time prior to her actual termination. Prior to termination, she had already begun the process to start this suit because she felt as though her complaint was not taken seriously by management. After complaining, it was only a few days before she was terminated. According to the Summary Judgement, it was only 15 minutes after she had informed someone that she listed him as a witness on her complaint (to the DOL?) that she was actually terminated. These factors were all deemed by the court to be a "casual link".
5. Additionally, people are talking about staying after hours. From my expierence, I believe that "after hours" is a term for after the bar had closed, while the staff was cleaning and still on the clock. I don't believe she was just hanging out while these things were going on.
I believe that alchohol played a large role in this behavior. That said, no matter how "small" people may deem the actions that took place, harassment in one person's eyes may not be the same in another. An undisputed fact in the testimony is that she did complain. That said, something should have been done to correct the behavior.
This case was not just about Sexual Harassment, but was also about Retaliation. From what I heard from someone who knows someone who knows someone (who might know someone who was involved in the case... ), the defense called numerous witnesses that contradicted eachother, and most of whom still have a connection to the Lobby House. Therefore, you also have a possible intention to cover up what happened. All this combined probably led to a very interesting 4 days.
From what I can tell based on what I have read and heard, I would have to say I agree with the jury. Mr. Poliquin said he was "shocked" and continues to attempt to sway the public's mind. Did anyone catch Mr. Poliquin's statement in the NJ about it being a bar and not a church or coporation (although the company name is Lobby House, Inc. which means it is a corporation, but that's besides the point)? It's almost as if he's defending the behavior just because its a bar. I'm sure she's a smart girl and realized she may expierence things from customers, but never expected the behavior for co-workers, or worse, management. Keep in mind, these claims were not against management. Meanwhile Mr. Primos provides very humble statements. That alone speaks volumes; it means something when you know you have nothing further to prove.
|
violetdragonfly Member

|
Posted: Fri Sep 26th, 2008 04:04 am |
|
I don't think SHE was participating in the 'body shots'. From what I understand from someone who was at the trial every day, it was something that was engaged in by other employees, leading to an atmosphere that harassment could occur in because management allowed it.
And Patron, if you're quoting me, do it correctly. I didn't make the comments about her whining etc. I did say something about documentation, I am assuming she had that since she won.
Last edited on Fri Sep 26th, 2008 04:06 am by violetdragonfly
|
InformedPatron Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 25th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 26th, 2008 03:07 am |
|
I guess I missed the part about "was foul-mouthed and a general whiner and complainer". Where in the article did it mention that? All the times I was there she was nothing but courteous...guess you had to be there. Also you stated, "I thought that complaints needed to be documented, to whom they spoke, on what date and about what behavior, etc, to actually have a case". She documented the occurances but did the owner and management?
|
deapp1 Member

| Joined: | Sun Aug 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 71 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 26th, 2008 01:41 am |
|
What a joke - bar + alcohol + drunk + stupidity = $100k - just no personal responsibility whatsoever! did they hold a gun to her head about doing body shots? state law protects her, as a licensed server, from being forced to serve any patron- especially drunk ones!
|
Bluesman Member

| Joined: | Thu Mar 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 3322 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 25th, 2008 03:22 pm |
|
InformedPerson,
Just from the what you have described I think any reasonably intelligent person can surmise that the "visits" were in fact to see how other female employees were treated in comparison to the way she was, and a witness was there to corroborate her observations.
As for her piercing so what, this isn't the 50's. Just because she mentions or even shows a body piercing isn't shouldn't be any indication that she is open for any form of sexual innuendos or harassment. That's like trying to defend rapist by saying well she was dressed like she was asking for it.
Last edited on Thu Sep 25th, 2008 03:26 pm by Bluesman
|
InformedPatron Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 25th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 25th, 2008 02:18 pm |
|
Read the court transcripts...they would answer all your questions.
|
InformedPatron Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 25th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 25th, 2008 02:16 pm |
|
Some choose to run from their problems, others choose to face those that created the problems. She chose the later. I know Shannon and the visits were few and for a purpose. Oh, and she was accompanied by family or friends. Who are you to judge...the legal system already did that...and sounds like you were on the loosing team.
|
InformedPatron Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 25th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 25th, 2008 02:13 pm |
|
I agree that your opinion is based on heresay. Laws were inacted to protect people from harrasment of all types. In accordance with the law she did what was right. Accordingly, the judge determined that there was enough evidence to try the case and the jury decided in her favor. It is the American way! It is the right way!
|
Bluesman Member

| Joined: | Thu Mar 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 3322 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 25th, 2008 01:05 pm |
|
curiousindover wrote: I only know what co-workers have told me. This is a really nice establishment from a businessman's stand-point. Ken, the owner, is a stand-up guy and would never condone this type of behavior by his employees. Regardless, he's the owner and must face the fire for their stupidity. Do I have "inside" information? No. Do I believe there's be a miscarriage of justice? YES. Wonder when people will quit trying to milk the system for their own short commings. Just Curious
so at best you have nothing but hearsay evidence that you are basically proclaiming to be the truth. We all know how businessmen are fine upstanding members of society, don't we ......................... Debora Palfrey comes to mind.
I don't agree with the award .......but as a professional musician who has played at many clubs and establishments all over the country, after hours partying goes on all the time including serving alcohol.
|
Playing the Game Member

| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2846 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 25th, 2008 01:13 am |
|
| When we stop electing Liberals who appoint liberal judges.
|
curiousindover Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 28th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 393 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 25th, 2008 12:58 am |
|
| I only know what co-workers have told me. This is a really nice establishment from a businessman's stand-point. Ken, the owner, is a stand-up guy and would never condone this type of behavior by his employees. Regardless, he's the owner and must face the fire for their stupidity. Do I have "inside" information? No. Do I believe there's be a miscarriage of justice? YES. Wonder when people will quit trying to milk the system for their own short commings. Just Curious
|
violetdragonfly Member

|
Posted: Wed Sep 24th, 2008 10:45 pm |
|
Curious, re the piercing, sounds like you have some insider info?
Was she forced to bare herself, or was she just a witness to frat-house type behavior while trying to work? IF she complained to management, they have a legal obligation to squash that kind of behavior in the workplace. I thought that complaints needed to be documented, to whom they spoke, on what date and about what behavior, etc, to actually have a case. I know I would be going to a place off hours if I was unhappy about working there. I had a job I hated (no harassment) and I couldn't WAIT to get out of there. I sure wouldn't have spent any time there off the clock!
|
curiousindover Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 28th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 393 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 24th, 2008 07:34 pm |
|
| An observation. Did ANYONE force this woman to bare herself to her co-workers or anyone else? If a person willingly participated, was foul-mouthed and a general whiner and complainer, why would an employer continue their employment? Did she brag to anyone about having body piercings in "private places" ? And she gets awarded $100,000 !! Why? Just curious.
|
tspong Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 817 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 24th, 2008 03:36 pm |
|
What do you think?
From the Delaware State News: Ex-bartender awarded $100K
Claimed sex harassment while employee at Lobby House
By Drew Volturo
Delaware State News
DOVER — A U.S. District Court jury has awarded a former Lobby House bartender more than $100,000 after she claimed that management of the popular Dover restaurant and nightspot sexually harassed her.
Shannon Laymon alleged that late-night parties took place at the Lobby House at 9 E. Loockerman St., with people taking shots off waitresses’ bodies and women flashing others, while she was employed at the restaurant from September 2005 until March 2007, when she was fired.
"Much of the activity happened late at night, though some witnesses, including one of the defense’s witnesses, testified that it sometimes happened when customers were present," said Dover attorney Noel E. Primos, who is representing Ms. Laymon.
"She testified about the emotional distress it caused her. It was very emotionally upsetting to her, something that made it much more difficult to work in that environment."
The scene described in court documents more closely resembles a wild night in Dewey Beach — which is known for raucous parties — than the Lobby House, a Dover establishment that often plays host to political fund-raisers and is a gathering place for state lawmakers, lobbyists and others after the legislative session adjourns for the day.
Attorneys for the restaurant are expected to file motions in the federal court this week to significantly reduce or set aside the jury award, but the Sept. 12 verdict could carry other implications.
The state Division of Alcohol and Tobacco Enforcement is opening an investigation into allegations of "after hours" socializing at the establishment.
"People commonly refer to drinking after a bar closes as ‘after hours,’ but it’s the actual hours that matter," said Michael Hertzfeld, Alcohol and Tobacco Enforcement’s supervisory agent for Kent and Sussex counties.
"All restaurants, bars and liquor stores cannot sell or serve alcoholic beverages after 1 a.m. Restaurants like the Lobby House can remain open, but after 2 a.m., people there can no longer drink alcohol."
Mr. Hertzfeld said the time of any after hours drinking is important, noting that the division sometimes receives complaints about employees of other restaurants drinking after closing, but the establishment closed before 1 a.m.
"If employees stayed on and were getting served until 1 a.m., that is perfectly legal," said Mr. Hertzfeld, adding that the division is obligated to investigate any such claims when they are reported in the media or are alleged in court documents.
Dover police spokesman Lt. James E. Hosfelt said the city police department has not received any criminal complaints about sexual harassment at the Lobby House and is not planning on investigating the claims.
Lobby House attorney Ronald Poliquin said he was "extremely shocked" by the jury’s decision because no witnesses backed up Ms. Laymon’s claims.
"There were an overwhelming number of female Lobby House workers who testified that no sexual harassment took place," Mr. Poliquin said.
"What you have is one employee making claims that no one else could substantiate."
Mr. Primos said Ms. Laymon was fired after she retained an attorney in relation to a workers’ compensation claim and had complained to a manager about sexual harassment.
"She was told by management that if she didn’t like it, she could go work somewhere else," Mr. Primos said.
That argument, Mr. Poliquin said, is moot because Ms. Laymon socialized at the Lobby House when she wasn’t scheduled to work, including a few weeks before she made the allegations.
"If you have a hostile work environment, one doesn’t normally socialize there when they’re not required to be there for work," he said.
Mr. Primos countered that it was difficult for his client to file a complaint to management when it was managers who were creating the situation.
Staff writer Drew Volturo can be reached at 741-8296 or dvolturo@newszap.com.
|
 Current time is 03:09 am | |
|