Lizardo vs Denny Inc. NDI Free Essay Example, 750 words

LIZARDO VERSUS DENNY INC. NDI of Affiliation LIZARDO VERSUS DENNY INC. NDI In handling the situation, the security guards and the Denny’s management should have calmly sorted out the issue, therefore avoiding the extremism they found themselves in. In a country having high racism records, the affected races were bound to be paranoid and treatments from the major races that seemed unfavorable were construed to be discrimination. Having this at the back of their minds, it would have been therefore proper that the when Chiu complained of the long wait and introducing the element of discrimination, to be explained to that there were others on the waiting list long before them. A customer’s complaint should have been addressed soberly and not with annoyance of Ms. Kirts and the subsequent ejection of Lizardo, the second complainant to their services. The security guards reaction and the shoving of the two plaintiffs’ was a clear indication that Mr. Adam had personalized the whole issue which should not have been the case. The security guard should not even have involved himself in the word exchange as this aggravated the tension and led to the physical fights. We will write a custom essay sample on Lizardo vs Denny Inc. NDI or any topic specifically for you Only $17.96 $11.86/pageorder now He should have however restrained himself from anything that would suggest to the paranoid plaintiffs that they were being discriminated against. The manager on the other hand also seemed to have personalized the issue and the African American complaint of the security guard is taken as an offence leading to the profane respond that made them be ejected too out of the restaurant. She however would have ignored their talk or rather promise to deal with it instead of complicating the matter further. 2 The security guards’ daytime occupation influenced the decision of the case on account that the guards were sober at the time of the incident and hence not intoxicated. It therefore follows that the steps they took at the parking lot were within their scope of profession and in line with their duty to avoid disruption of public peace in this case, by the plaintiff’s who from the facts had patronized one of the bars before coming to the restaurant. It is worth noting that as the guards of the restaurant, they were therefore expected to perform their duties accordingly and get assistance where required. 3 A claim of discrimination requires the party claiming discrimination to show that the major group had received a preferential treatment or the minority group had been victims of an outright hostility in comparison to the treatment given to the major group (Schiek & Bell, 2007). At all material times the two groups should have been similar in significant respects but the major group should have been treated with preference to the minor group or should have receive hostility which the major group was treated in a better respect. There is also need to establish that the group being discriminated upon was engaged in an activity protected under the anti-discrimination statutes in this case, the U. S Code of 1981 against discrimination. The discriminating party should be aware of the minority party’s participation in the protected activity and as such still took an adverse action against the minority. There should also be a nexus between the protected activity and the adverse action taken by the discriminating party (Fredman, 2011). The court ‘s decision is justified on the ground that the plaintiffs in this case could not sufficiently prove the above so as to convince the court that the action of the Denny Inc. amounted to a discrimination based on their racial affiliation. In the restaurant there were other minorities who were served and were seated. It is also worth noting that there were other people in the in the list who were waiting to seat and besides that there was an action being done to see them get a place for the six of them. A comparison to the few patrons who had been seated before them was not sufficient to warrant a claim of discrimination their part. This is because these patrons were there before them. Considering that the plaintiffs could not give evidence of any patron who was given preferential treatment, there claim could therefore not stand. The ejection of the plaintiff was not sufficient to warrant discrimination but was a mere lack of manners on the part of the defendants. 4 The court of appeal decision is based on a review of the district court. The decision is reached after examining the entire record and determining whether there was proof an intentional discrimination by the defendant to the plaintiff based on the facts given. The court of appeal therefore examined all the relevant facts of the plaintiff and the defendant’s case before reaching their decision. This will therefore form a good precedent as the court was detailed in explaining what amounted to or did not amount to discrimination and on what circumstances would a situation be described as discriminatory. In subsequent cases of similar issues the courts will hence have a lesser task in determining discrimination of lack of it. It therefore follows that discrimination would be established where the group claiming discrimination proves that the other party was given preferential treatment in an event that both of them were at similar in significant respects. It is also important to show that the discriminating party intentionally engaged in an activity that was adverse to the plaintiff’s protected right to non-discrimination. Any action besides this will not amount to discrimination but a mere lack of civility. References Fredman, S. (2011). Discrimination law. Oxford [etc. : Oxford University Press. Schiek, D., & Bell, M. (2007). Cases, materials and text on national, supranational and international non-discrimination law. Oxford [u. a.: Hart.