Store Manager

Describes motivation process for creativity with emphasis on intrinsic motivation by Corey K Katir

A woman went to a fast-food burger joint and ate there. After finishing her meal, she went to use the bathroom. She waited a while to use the bathroom as another lady was still using the bathroom when she got there. When she entered the bathroom, as she passed the sink to go to the toilet, she had a slip and fall because of a puddle of water.

After her slip and fall, she cleaned up herself and limped out of the bathroom. As she left, she saw a yellow caution (wet floor) sign outside the bathroom area. The sign was folded near the wall of the menas bathroom.

She reported her slip and fall to the store manager. From the store manager the lady learned that the bathroom had just been mopped not half an hour before her slip and fall. She also learned that there was no regularly scheduled cleaning of the bathrooms; any regularly scheduled inspection of the bathrooms. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the store manager informed her that he had not received any information that a puddle of water existed near the sink in the ladiesa bathroom.

After discovery, the fast-food burger joint filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that it had no notice that a puddle had formed in the ladiesa bathroom and it did not have any opportunity to clean or prevent the puddle from becoming a dangerous condition.

The only question before the court is whether or not there are still issues of fact that need to be tried by a jury. A Nassau County Personal Injury Lawyer said the Court ruled that it is a law that owners of establishments must keep their premises reasonably safe for its customers, and avoid putting them at risk of serious personal injury. However, the law also puts the burden on the plaintiff to show that the fast-food establishment acted negligently and created the puddle, or, that it had actual or constructive notice off the puddle which caused the slip and fall injury and yet, it chose to do nothing.

In this case, since it is the fast-food burger joint that filed a motion for summary judgment, it has the burden of proving affirmatively not only that it did not create the puddle, it also has the burden of proving that it had no actual or constructive notice that the puddle existed.

The Court rejected the fast-food burger jointas claim that it could not have known about the puddle as no one complained of it and that they could not have learned about it as there were no regular inspections in the bathroom. A Manhattan Personal Injury Lawyer said the Court notes that the fast-food burger joint is a popular fast-food chain that has a lot of people so it defies all belief that clean-ups and inspections are only conducted as needed when a customer complains.

The fast-food burger joint claims that the woman who used the bathroom just before the plaintiff used the bathroom could have created the puddle. Even if another customer created the puddle, still the fast-food burger joint cannot be relieved of its responsibility to positively show that it had not created the puddle and it had no notice of the existence of the puddle.
The fast-food jointas motion for summary judgment motion is denied and the parties are directed by the Court to report for jury selection in preparation for trial.

Did you slip and fall within the premises of an establishment? Are you wondering what your legal remedies are? Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates and confer with any of their New York City Slip and Fall attorneys who can explain to you what remedies are open to you. Their NYC Slip and Fall lawyers can apprise you of the different causes of action you can bring to ensure that you are justly compensated for the legal injury you suffered. Are you wondering what kinds of evidence you have to present? The New York Slip and Fall attorneys at Stephen Bilkis can show you and help you obtain the evidence you need to prove your cause of action. Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates today, speak to their NY Slip and Fall lawyers and begin to work toward obtaining a reasonable compensation.

On September 16, 2006, a woman and her daughter were shopping in a sporting goods store at 606 West 181st Street in New York. They both got on the escalator to go to the second floor to shop. The daughter got off of the escalator and walked toward the gym clothes. She was almost at the clothes when she heard her mother fall and cry out. She turned and ran to her mother. A New York Injury Lawyer said her mother was laying on the floor of the store at the top of the escalator. Next to her on the floor were some pieces of Mango that were old, brown and mashed down onto the floor. It was evident that her mother had stepped on one and slipped causing her to fall(slip and fall).

The manager of the store ran over and began to yell at the cashiers that they should have cleaned up the mango mess. He berated them for not seeing the problem and taking care of it. He stated that it was part of their jobs to watch for spills and to clean them up as fast as possible. The cashiers claimed that they had not noticed the mango slices on the floor in spite of the fact that the mango was just a few feet away from the cash registers. When the store manager was notified of the incident, he was advised by the attorneys to secure any videotaped footage of the incident that might be on the storeas surveillance cameras. The store was equipped with numerous cameras covering the second floor where the accident occurred. The store manager verified that he had the incident on tape and was told to preserve it for court. He stated that he secured it in the safe. However, a few months later, he advised that it was not available for court because the tape had been destroyed.

The destruction of the evidence on the tape was disconcerting to all involved. The court is left to presume that the tape showed where the dropped fruit had come from and how long it had been on the floor before the accident occurred. A Brooklyn Personal Injury Lawyer said it would also have shown the accident itself. The fact that the tape has been destroyed raises more questions than it answers. The store manager maintains that it does not matter how long the fruit was on the floor because no one employed by the store was aware that the problem existed. Since there was no constructive notice given to the store employees about the damaged fruit on the floor, the manager maintains that he is not liable. Both parties agreed that sliced mangoes are sold outside of the store on a regular basis. They are served pierced on a stick so that they are easy to carry. The store has a policy that prohibits food or beverages inside the store. However, none of the employees saw anyone enter the store with the mango stick.

The store manager filed a request for summary judgment to dismiss the case against him. He claims that he did not have constructive notice that there was a hazard on the floor and that it needed to be cleaned up. A Bronx Personal Injury Lawyer said that he stated that he should be granted summary judgment because the policies are in place, and there is no evidence that the mango pieces had been on the floor long enough for the store owner to be held liable for them.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates has Personal Injury Lawyers in convenient offices throughout New York and Metropolitan area. Do not suffer if you were injured because of the negligence of others. Personal Injury Attorneys can provide you with advice to guide you through any injury. Any time that a person is injured because of the negligence of others, it is important that they obtain an attorneyas advice. By reporting a hazardous situation it is possible to help protect other people from becoming injured by the same or similar circumstances.

Class Action Treatment of Sex Discrimination in Promotion Claim Against Wal-Mart not Proper because Commonality Requirement not Met and because Rule 23(b)(2) Class Inappropriate given Monetary Relief Sought Supreme Court Holds

Plaintiffs filed a putative labor law class action against Wal-Mart Stores, alleging systematic discrimination against women in pay and promotion in violation of Title VII. Wal-Mart v. Dukes, 564 U.S. ___ (June 20, 2011) [Slip Opn., at 1]. The class action sought injunctive and declaratory relief, but also sought monetary damages in the form of backpay. Id. The theory underlying the class action against Wal-Mart was not that the company had “any express corporate policy against the advancement of women” but, rather, that Wal-Mart’s local managers “[exercised] discretion over pay and promotion…disproportionately in favor of men, leading to an unlawful disparate impact on female employees.” Id., at 4. As the Supreme Court explained, “The basic theory of the[] case is that a strong and uniform ‘corporate culture’ permits bias against women to infect, perhaps subconsciously, the discretionary decisionmaking of each one of Wal-Mart’s thousands of managers – thereby making every woman at the company the victim of one common discriminatory practice.” Id. The district court certified a nationwide class action against Wal-Mart consisting of approximately 1.5 million current and former female employees, id., at 1. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the class action certification order, id. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed.

By way of background, the Supreme Court noted that Wal-Mart is the largest private employer in the United States, operating 4 types of retail stores (Discount Stores, Neighborhood Markets, Sam’s Clubs and Superstores) that are “divided into seven nationwide divisions, which in turn comprise 41 regions of 80 to 85 stores apiece,” each with 40-53 separate departments and anywhere 80-500 employees. Wal-Mart, at 1-2. Decisions regarding pay and promotion “are generally committed to local managers’ broad discretion, which is exercised ‘ in a largely subjective manner.’” Id., at 2, quoting 222 F.R.D. 137, 145 (N.D. Cal. 2004). With respect to the individual named plaintiffs, Betty Dukes began working for Wal-Mart in 1994 and was eventually promoted to customer service manager before being demoted all the way down to greeter due to “a series of disciplinary violations.” Id., at 3. Dukes admitted that she violated company policy, but claimed that her demotions were “retaliation for invoking internal complaint procedures and that male employees have not been disciplined for similar infractions.” Id. Christine Kwapnoski worked at Sam’s Club “for most of her adult life” and held various positions, “including a supervisory position,” but she claimed that her male manager yelled at her and other female employees (but not at men) and told her to dress better, wear makeup and “doll up.” Id. Edith Arana worked at Wal-Mart from 1995-2001, and in 2000 repeatedly asked her store manager about management training “but was brushed off.” Id. She followed internal complaint procedures and was advised to bypass her store manager and apply directly to the district manager for management training, but she elected not to do so. Id. Arana was fired in 2001 for failing to comply with the company’s timekeeping policy. Id.

SIPPED: Jesus as store manager in the image above? LARGELY SPIT: Bordeaux 11 After pre-judging the Bordeaux 2011 vintage prior to tasting, Parker dials back the damning commentary writing in his report that it was “much better than I first thought,” likening it to 2008 and 2001. [DrinksBusiness.com] SIPPED, NOT SMOKED: Mike Steinberger answers the [...]

The April 21 Metro headline aWould-be robber had itchy trigger fingera was inappropriate, given the serious nature of the article. While it was true that the robber reportedly fired his gun much sooner than he intended, the consequences were dire for the store manager: He was paralyzed below the waist. Read full article >>

By Philip L. Gordon

Ever since the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) filed a complaint, last November, against ambulance service provider AMR for firing an employee who had called her supervisor a “mental patient” on her Facebook wall, employers have been forced to ask themselves the following question: Do I really need to worry that the NLRB will knock on my door every time I discipline an employee for an obnoxious or offensive Facebook post related to work? Until two weeks ago, there was no easy answer to that question. The AMR case and virtually all of the other “Facebook cases” initiated by the NLRB had either settled or had not yet resulted in a published decision. Then, last month, the NLRB’s Office of General Counsel issued three Advice Memoranda in rapid succession that provide at least some guidance for employers trying to navigate the intersection of social media and labor law.

Two of the Advice Memoranda draw the same bright line rule: an employee who communicates about work through Facebook but only with family or friends cannot invoke the protections of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to avoid dismissal. In one of these two cases, an employee of a residential home for homeless individuals with significant mental illness posted facetious comments about residents on her Facebook wall. Only a personal friend responded to the Facebook posts, and none of the employee’s coworkers were her Facebook friends. The General Counsel concluded that the employee’s Facebook posts were not protected because the employee was merely communicating with personal friends about work. In addition: (a) her posts did not relate to the terms or conditions of employment; (b) the employee did not discuss her posts with coworkers, and no coworkers responded to them; and (c) the employee was not seeking to induce collective action and her posts were not an outgrowth of collective concerns.

The second case was a slightly tougher one. There, a bartender complained through Facebook to his step-sister about this employer’s policy barring him from sharing in tips given to servers even though the bartenders helped to serve food. The General Counsel concluded that the bartender could not rely on the NLRA to reverse his firing, even though the post related to the terms of employment, for the same reasons that the employee of the residential home could not do so – the employee did not discuss his post with coworkers and the employee was not seeking to induce collective actions.

The third case provides the most useful guidance, drawing the line between individual gripes (unprotected) and collective activity (protected). In that case, the employee made the following comments about her store’s Assistant Manager:

I swear if this tyranny doesn’t end in this store, they are about to get a wakeup call because lots are about to quit.
* * * *
[Assistant Manager] is being a super mega puta! Its retarded I get chewed out cuz we got people putting stuff in the wrong spot and then the customer wanting it for that price . . . . I’m talking to [Store Manager] about this shit because if it don’t change [Company] can kiss my royal white ass.

While these guidelines and the Advice Memoranda obviously do not address the full range of Facebook conduct that intersects with the workplace, they do at least provide some guideposts for employers when deciding whether to discipline or fire an employee based on his or her obnoxious or offensive Facebook post.

Personal Injury Lawyer Los Angeles – FREE CONSULTATION by Personal Injury Attorney Los Angeles – Legal Defenders, Los Angeles Personal Injury Lawyers – Law Offices of Burg and Brock, who have won over $100 million in verdicts and settlements for clients

Page took 2 seconds to load.