Hey, there! Log in / Register

Commission orders Dorchester pizza place to pay customer $105,000 for racist tirade by worker; yes, the place whose owner is awaiting trial on charges he's a violent racist

The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination has ordered Stash's Pizza, Blue Hill Avenue at Columbia Road to pay a customer $105,000 for the racist tirade she had to endure when she called to complain about the way she was treated when she didn't get the pizza she had ordered one night in October, 2020.

In a decision released last month, MCAD Hearing Officer Jason Barshak concluded that the woman continues to suffer psychological trauma from the incident, in which a worker told her, among other things, to ponder how many Blacks"like you" are hanged across the street at Franklin Park, only that's not the word he used.

Barshak was unable to identify the person who mistreated the woman, except that it was not owner Stavros Papantoniadis, who had gone to dinner with his family at Davio's on Fan Pier, followed by time at a Greek club called Pontiaki on Albany Street, before heading home to Westwood.

Papantoniadis is currently behind bars, awaiting trial in federal court in May on charges he mistreated, sometimes violently, the undocumented immigrants he allegedly preferred to hire precisely so he could mistreat them at his Dorchester and Roslindale pizza places and a place he formerly owned in Norwood.

According to Barshak's decision, the woman called Stash's around 12:30 a.m. on Oct. 4, 2020 to order a large cheese pizza to go, but that when she got there to pick it up, the white guy behind the counter said he had no record of her order but he told her he had a small pie and that she could "take it or leave it." She left to try another place, but then she called Stash's to ask for a manager to complain to, according to Barshak's ruling:

The person responded "why don't you come here" so "I can put a bullet in your head" and called Thomas a "nigger" or a "fucking nigger." [The woman] was shocked. The person hung up the phone.

Thinking she had maybe gotten the wrong number, the woman dialed Stash's again, and got the same guy:

The person who answered said "stop calling me you fucking nigger" and hung up.

She tried once more:

The person who answered the telephone asked [her]whether she knew "how many niggers like you get hung" at Franklin Park and told her to "[s]top calling me you fucking nigger." [She] said "[y]ou fucking racist" and the conversation ended. [She] was shocked and angry. [She] began crying, as she started to think about how black slaves had been hung from trees.

And then she got a text message from a different number, Barshak wrote.

The text message said "Fucking nigga."

The woman called the number the message came from and:

[T]he same person, who had answered the calls [earlier] told [the woman] that he was "off work" and "ready to hang a nigger" and asked "where are you?"

Barshak rejected an argument from Stash's that it shouldn't be forced to pay for the worker's misdeeds because he kept answering - and texting - after the place was closed for the night and its employee manual specifically states workers should not answer the phone after closing. He wrote:

Those comments and message were made during a patron's attempt to speak to a manager about poor customer service. Interacting with a patron about customer service falls within the scope of employment duties.

AttachmentSize
PDF icon Complete ruling354.1 KB


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

ponder how many Blacks "like you" are hanged across the street at Franklin Park, only that's not the word he used.

Hanged across the avenue?

its employee manual specifically states workers should not answer the phone after closing

Good point...maybe it should have also said not to be racist too.

up
Voting closed 5

$105,000

What was the lawyer's cut? Why is it that the clients actual take home is never reported?

up
Voting closed 5

Although the woman did report the tirade to BPD, I didn't feel like dragging her name into the story, given that she is the victim here (I mean, if you really want to know, it's not hard to find).

I notice you didn't ask why the employee's name wasn't mentioned, though, any particular reason?

up
Voting closed 3

It's now about the amount of the award, not about the victim's name.

up
Voting closed 3

of the 105K.
Whenever a legal award is announced, it's the amount the defendant
has to pay, not the amount the plaintiff ultimately receives.
$35K for the lawyer, 70K for the victim.

up
Voting closed 3

If you had asked me where the douchebag, racist owner likes to eat I probably would have guessed Davios in the seaport.

up
Voting closed 4

Owner has to pay? That’s wrong. Employee was the one who did the act.

up
Voting closed 3

As a representative of the business.

up
Voting closed 3

She interacted with a business. She called the business. The business's representative harrassed and threatened her.

up
Voting closed 3

That's basic employment liability law: you are responsible for your employees actions on the job. For example if the employee was delivering pizza and got into an accident and is at fault, the employer is also responsible.

up
Voting closed 4

The business has to pay, not the owner. That's not hair-splitting: if the pizzeria goes out of busiiness or otherwise can't pay the judgment, this ruling doesn't give the plaintiff a claim on the pizzeria owner's bank account, house, or other personal property.

up
Voting closed 4

If you read the entire MCAD, this is a woman who is clearly already troubled. This does not mean she deserves to be a victim of racism, however, she has been eluding the workplace and truly playing victim of everything, for a long time. There are people who are able to monetize being a victim; she's absolutely one of the best examples.

up
Voting closed 4

You also read that the hearing officer discounted the severity of the woman's complaint to take into account all those other things going on in her life at the time (which seems like quite a bit), and yet still concluded the employee telling her he was going to hang her in Franklin Park was, as they say, Not a Good Thing, right?

up
Voting closed 4

Reading the judgment is interesting.

I have read enough housing problem stories on UHub and elsewhere that I find her reports entirely plausible. So, apparently, did the hearing officer who very clearly stated which testimony he did and didn't give credence to. Similarly, going through a divorce is virtually always stressful. Nothing in this summary gives any reason to believe she was "playing victim" in the divorce case.

As to "There are people who are able to monetize being a victim; she's absolutely one of the best examples", I don't see where she has monetized any of the other cases cited.

up
Voting closed 4

...is just the *chef's kiss* on the stupid.

up
Voting closed 3

"Gee, it might be kind of troublesome for her lawyer to get the business to give up the work schedules to determine who was on duty and said these things to her. I'd better grab the number from the pizza shop's phone system and give her a direct call from my cell."

Just genius.

up
Voting closed 1