The first is the federal lawsuit recently filed against Panera Bread. Panera, owned by Warren, Ohio-based Covelli Enterprises,operates about 200 stores in four states, allegedly has a policy of not placing "black, ugly or fat" people at the cash registers where they can be viewed easily by customers. It seems a white manager at a Pittsburgh-area Panera cafe was chastised by a district manager for having a black man at the register and told "“You know that is a death sentence for me and you if Sam [Covelli] would walk in and see him on register.” This manager was forced to relocate a black man who worked the cash register to the back of the cafe - out of the public eye. Both the white manager and the black employee are parties to the federal lawsuit. I should mention here that Panera is a franchise operation. The policy in question is alleged to be a policy at Panera's owned by Covelli Enterprises.
As I read about this developing story, I thought about the numerous times I've visited a Panera cafe, both in Texas and in Pennsylvania. If memory serves, there has been only one time that I've observed a black person at the cash register. The son of a friend worked at Panera in Warren, Ohio for about five years. He worked in the kitchen. Pittsburgh is a city with about 26% African-Americans, many of whom patronize Panera. Is it wrong to expect to see someone who looks like you at the cash register? Are black people noticing the lack of representation in stores and restaurants, or as some suggest, are black people "too sensitive?"
The second story that triggers this post is a story today concerning a landlord [Jamie Hein] in Ohio who posted a "white only" sign on the pool gate of her apartment building. On 12 January 2012, Hein lost an appeal with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission regarding her posting of the sign. The background? A tenant of the apartment has a bi-racial daughter. The tenant, his fiance' and his child attended a pool party. The bi-racial daughter was the only non-white at the pool party. Hein later questioned him about the "chemicals" used in the daughter's hair. She then claimed that the "grease" in the daughter's hair "muddied" up the pool water. She subsequently put up the sign below.
When the complaint was filed, the landlord claimed the sign was merely "a decorative antique." The Commission ruled the sign, which read "Public Swimming Pool, White Only," violated state housing discrimination laws, and dismissed landlord Jamie Hein's claim that it was simply a decorative antique. Despite filing the appeal, neither Hein nor her attorneys were present for the hearing regarding the appeal.
So, I ask, how far have we truly come? This is 2012, the 21st century! Yet, there are still ignorant, biased and racist people who, I guess, believe that black people are still "the other," that black people are somehow inferior to white people and who, in their racist ignorance, still feel empowered to make such policy, display such signs.
The birth defect remains!
Blessings,
Tee
No comments:
Post a Comment