Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Moosehead Attackes New York Restaurant Patron



Beware of falling moose!

A Manhattan woman has sued a lower East Side restaurant, claiming she was conked in the head by a moosehead that fell off a wall.

Raina Kumra, 32, sued White Slab Palace, a Scandinavian-inspired hipster hangout on Delancey St., for an unspecified amount, charging the owners were "grossly careless" in mounting the taxidermy wildlife.

"It was the bar's fault," Kumra told the Daily News Tuesday. "I was injured and in an embarrassing way."

The 150-pound moosehead with antlers spanning over 3 feet was the centerpiece of the restaurant's back party room.

In a suit filed in Manhattan Supreme Court, Kumra said she was standing under the moosehead about 1 a.m. on Oct. 4 when it came dislodged and crowned her.

Named in the suit is Annika Sundvik, a Manhattan art gallery owner who opened White Slab Palace in February.

The restaurant "had a duty to provide ... an environment free from falling objects," the suit charges.

Kumra said she suffered a concussion when clobbered on the head in the party room packed with patrons.

Since the incident, Kumra has lost cognitive skills and suffered chronic neck pain, fatigue, dizzy spells and anxiety from mounting medical expenses, the suit says. Sundvik, who also owns Good Bar & Grill in Chinatown, did not immediately return calls for comment. A manager at the restaurant refused to comment, saying she hadn't heard of the suit.

Meanwhile, Richard Santomauro, owner of Wildlife Taxidermy in Wall, N.J., insisted Kumra was not hit by a moosehead.

"That's a caribou," he said after viewing a photo of the stuffed head.

With Katie McFadden

mgrace@nydailynews.com

With Katie McFadden

Thursday, December 3, 2009

Cheesecake Factory Settles EEOC Suit in Case of Severe Same-Sex Sexual Harassment


Cheesecake Factory Settles EEOC Suit in Case of Severe Same-Sex Sexual Harassment

Restaurant Chain Will Pay $345,000 to Six Male Employees Who Agency Alleged Were Repeatedly Sexually Assaulted
PHOENIX – Cheesecake Factory, Inc., a nationwide restaurant chain that touts itself as a place to create “lasting memories with family and friends,” will pay $345,000 and furnish other relief to settle a sexual harassment suit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today. The EEOC had charged that six male employees were subjected to repeated sexual harassment at the company’s Chandler Mall location.
In its lawsuit (EEOC v. Cheesecake Factory, Inc., CV 08-1207-PHX-NVW), the EEOC charged that Cheesecake knew about and tolerated repeated sexual assaults against six male employees by a group of male kitchen staffers. The company denied the allegations. However, according to the agency, the evidence overwhelmingly showed that the men suffered sexually abusive behavior, including abusers directly touching victims’ genitals, making sexually charged remarks, grinding their genitals against them, and forcing victims into repeated episodes of simulated rape. Managers witnessed employees dragging their victims kicking and screaming into the refrigerator, the EEOC charged.
Complaints to virtually every manager at the restaurant were made, but they never put a stop to it. Victims felt helpless, the agency said, and one finally had to call the police.
Sexual harassment violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement.

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Mr. Chow Sticks It To Philippe Chow Again; For TEN Million!!


Really, the insane Chow Wars are the gift that keeps on giving. The latest, via Eater Miami is that Mr. Chow was back in a Miami court today to file an amended complaint against all the Philippe restaurants. The new complaint merges the Florida and California cases and asks to be heard by a single court. Plus, four ex-Mr. Chow chefs have been named as new defendants because—according to the complaint—they were allegedly lured by Philippe (!!) to share trade secrets and other valuable confidential info they gained during their tenure at Mr. Chow. Team Chow says they stand by all of the claims in the lawsuit and will pursue damages in excess of $10 million. Follow along the fun at Eater Miami.

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Waitresses at Hooters file suit for having to buy skimpy, sexy outfits with own money


It costs Hooters girls less than $20 to get sexy - but it may end up costing the tacky restaurant chain a lot more.

Two waitresses filed a class-action suit on Thursday in Brooklyn Federal Court charging that Hooters failed to reimburse them for buying and cleaning the barely there uniforms with the company logo.

Gina Rosati of Copiague, L.I., and Amy Fredericks of Bayside, Queens, said they were forced to fork over $5.45 for orange hot pants, $6 for the tight-fitting Lycra tank top, $3.25 for a pouch, $2.50 for suntan pantyhose and $2.25 for thick white socks.

Under state labor law, an employer must provide its workers with a workplace uniform if they're not regular street duds.

The women's lawyer, Louis Pechman, said the Hooters' practice is patently illegal.

"I don't think that could confuse the Hooters uniform clothes as part of someone's ordinary wardrobe," Pechman said.

Pechman said the cost may be minimal - but the law is the law.

Rosati, who works at the Hooters in East Meadow, L.I., and Fredericks at the restaurant Fresh Meadows, Queens, declined requests for interviews.

The company's Web site adds that the Hooters Girl uniform also consists of "a smile," but there's apparently no charge for that.

A call for comment to Strix LLC which owns and operates the Hooters restaurants on Long Island was not returned.

Thursday, September 10, 2009

Anyone Remember Thai Toni?

Miami Beach Restaurant Operator To Pay $15,000, Follow Uniform Tipping Policy To Settle Charges

TALLAHASSEE -- The operator of a Miami Beach restaurant will pay $15,000 and follow a uniform tipping policy to settle charges that he unlawfully added a gratuity to the check of two patrons because of their race, Attorney General Bob Butterworth announced today.

Hiromi Takarada, acting manager of Thai Toni Restaurant, also agreed to submit himself and his employees and corporate associates to training about their responsibilities under state and federal nondiscrimination laws and regulations.

The $15,000 will be paid to the Florida Commission on Human Relations, which is to use the money in part to design, develop and conduct the nondiscrimination training for Thai Toni personnel. The remainder of the money will be used to develop an educational program, seminar or conference to be offered to businesses in Miami-Dade County to instruct them of their nondiscrimination responsibilities and to advance racial harmony. The program will be developed with input from the Miami chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

"This agreement not only corrects a serious problem at one restaurant, it provides the resources to instruct other businesses on proper behavior toward their customers," Butterworth said.

Butterworth on November 8 charged Takarada with violating the state's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act when he added a 15 percent gratuity to the check of diners Charles Thompson and Theresa L. White, both of Miami. Takarada told Thompson and a police officer that the automatic tip was added because the customers were black and it was his belief that blacks do not tip well, Butterworth said.

Under the agreement, Thai Toni will follow a policy under which a 15 percent gratuity will be added to every patron's bill and customers will be advised they can either increase or decrease that amount. The uniform tipping policy will be duly noticed at the restaurant as required by state law.

The agreement also covers Takarada's wife, Hatsuse Takarada, and other businesses the couple operate. The agreement was handled by Assistant Attorney General Terrence Smith.

Sunday, August 30, 2009

Hooters Sued by Hooter's Girls

More than a dozen former and current "Hooters Girls" from the District, Maryland and South Carolina have sued the chicken wing giant for violating minimum wage laws.

The lawsuit filed in the District's federal court late last week, claims the company counted the girls' tips toward the minimum wage and then violated the law by requiring them to pay the company for their uniforms, among other allegations.

The scheme "essentially amounted to kickbacks," to Hooters, said Heidi Burakiewicz, the attorney for the 13 Hooters waitresses. Hooters did not respond to requests for comment.

The waitresses were required to buy their shirts, shorts, aprons, socks, shoes and pins from the company, the lawsuit alleges. The biggest ticket item, however, were nylons for which Burakiewicz said the company charged $4 a pair.

"They're very distinctive pantyhose," Burakiewicz said. "Under no circumstances would you see someone wearing them on the street." The pantyhose wore out quickly, and the girls were often buying new pairs, she said.

Federal law allows an employer to pay a tip-earning employee $2.13 an hour, which the lawsuit claims Hooters did. But, if the employer chooses that path, it can't then charge for uniforms.

An employer paying the lower hourly wage also can't require employees to pool their tips and then have them include typically non-tip-earning employees in the payout. The lawsuit claims that Hooters did just that, making the waitresses share their tips with dishwashers and other kitchen employees.

The suit also alleges the Hooters Girls were not paid overtime for the hours it took to open and close the restaurants, and for the meetings they attended. The nationwide restaurant chain also deducted from the girls' wages the cost of customer "walk-outs," the suit said.

This is the second lawsuit in recent months filed by Hooters Girls alleging the company violated minimum wage laws.

In May, eight girls filed a suit against the company in California claiming their tips were used in a similar scheme.

Burakiewicz said her law firm, Woodley & McGillivary, is planning to ask the court to create a nationwide class action suit.

Saturday, August 29, 2009

Restaurant Policies Punish Tipped Employees


Things have been getting busy around the office. With the downturn in the economy, it seems that many restaurant owners and managers are looking for a way to lower costs and bump up profits. Unfortunately, it seems that wait staff and other tipped employees are the first to suffer.

My first thought on this trend is for restaurant management to understand that your most important employees are the ones that have direct contact with your customers. If your front of the house (FOH) staff is unhappy, the image they transmit to the customers is the same and that hurts business.

My second thought on the trend is if you need to cut costs, do not start with staff who are making only $4.23/hr. (the new minimum wage for tipped employees in Florida). After 25 years in the restaurant business I have found that the best way to cut costs is to keep a closer eye on the kitchen. One over-cooked 16oz. NY Strip will set you back $6.50 just for the steak. Put another properly cooked steak on the plate and it cost you $13.00 just in meat to make $15.95.

Although the state of Florida does not have very strong laws to protect hospitality workers, the Federal government does. There are very strict laws as to who may participate in tip pools and the proper rate which needs to be paid for overtime.

The Law Office of Lowell J. Kuvin specializes in protecting hospitality workers rights throughout the entire state. Some of the recent cases we are working on include:

• Servers working at a restaurant were not paid any hourly wages and were required to contribute each week to the money paid to the restaurant cleaning crew.

• Servers at a country club were required to pool their tips in which the salaried management received a large portion.


• Servers at a restaurant were not allowed to clock in until they were sat their first table. They were required to be at the restaurant 1 hour prior to opening and were not paid for doing their set up side work. Additionally, two of the servers claim they were sexually harassed by the kitchen staff and management. When they complained to management they were told to toughen up. SETTLED

If you think the restaurant you work at is breaking the law, please contact our office for free to discuss the issues.

Law Office of Lowell J. Kuvin
22 NE 1st Street Suite 201
Miami Florida 33132

Tel: 305.358.6800
Fax: 305.358.6808
Toll: 888.KUVINLAW (588.4652)
lowell@kuvinlaw.com

Monday, August 24, 2009

Snapper on your plate may be an impostor


Genetics professor Mahmood Shivji didn't get into DNA research to strike fear in the hearts of restaurant owners and chefs.

But the Guy Harvey Research Institute, which he heads, is a virtual CSI: Seafood lab these days. The widespread -- and illegal -- practice of fish substitution at restaurants has placed Shivji's marine life genetics expertise in high demand.

In the last two years, Shivji has analyzed upward of 100 restaurant plates from across the country, more than half the time proclaiming that the dish was not the grouper or snapper specimen that diners thought they were eating. Instead, restaurants secretly served up cheaper fish such as catfish or tilapia.

``It's consumer fraud,'' said Shivji, who teaches at Nova Southeastern University. ``You're paying for item X and usually grouper and red snapper are on the higher end of the price list.''

With domestic grouper costing restaurants $11 or $12 a pound -- and imported catfish available for a mere $2.50 a pound -- unsavory chefs can profit handsomely from this unethical bait-and-switch.

Shivji has picked apart breaded fillets, fillets doused in sauce, even charred fillets left on the grill a little too long.

``We can tell with 100 percent certainty'' whether restaurants are scamming, Shivji said. The professor's initial interest in identifying fish through DNA came from his passion for conservation. The federal government was having a hard time enforcing protections for endangered shark species, for example, because rogue fishermen would chop up their illegal shark catches in ways that hid any identifying features.

But chopping up a fish can't hide the DNA, Shivji reasoned. Shivji went on to pioneer a new way of testing shark DNA that has been instrumental in cracking down on the shark fin trade.

SCOPE OF PROBLEM

Enter CBS4's Al Sunshine. Sunshine approached Shivji in 2007 with the idea to use the power of DNA to expose fish-swapping restaurants. Sunshine had to do a bit of arm-twisting to convince Shivji to run the first test, but Shivji's skepticism melted as the evidence of rampant seafood fraud poured in.

``It just validates the argument that this is a national, if not international, problem,'' Sunshine said.

Shivji's phone was soon deluged with calls from TV reporters in other towns. Shivji dutifully accepted and tested their frozen fish samples -- mailed in from places that included Los Angeles, New York and Charlotte, N.C.

Shivji has also fielded inquiries from an unidentified local fish wholesaler (who wanted to make sure his inventory was legit) and the Missouri attorney general's office (which was investigating restaurants in Kansas City).

Fish mislabeling persists in part because it is virtually impossible for federal and state regulators to police all of the nearly five billion pounds of seafood consumed by Americans each year -- more than 80 percent of which is imported.

Many restaurant patrons are also unfamiliar with the differences between species -- they might order grouper simply because it's a name they've heard before. ``Most consumers can't really tell the difference between a grouper and a catfish,'' said Carlos Sanguily, vice president of Doral-based fish importer JC Seafood.

Aside from not getting what you pay for, fish mislabeling is a serious obstacle to ocean conservation efforts, Shivji said.

Widely popular grouper, for example, is a ``severely overfished'' species, but by appearing (often in name only) on menus everywhere, it creates the false perception that groupers are plentiful.

Fish-swapping can also have health consequences. Some imported fish may be raised in polluted waters, and diners with specific fish allergies can end up eating a fish species they're doing their best to avoid.

Sushi lovers ordering ``White Tuna'' are routinely served escolar, a tasty-but-oily fish that so frequently causes diarrhea it earned the nickname ``Ex-Lax fish.''

In the general genetics class Shivji teaches at NSU every fall semester, seafood fraud has become a teaching tool. Shivji regularly sends an army of students out to local restaurants to collect grouper samples that will be DNA-analyzed in class.

The tests revealed sizable numbers of impostor fish.

``It's got them jazzed up,'' Shivji said of his students. ``They go and talk about it with their families, `We did this and this is what we found.' ''

OVERSIGHT

Of course, keeping restaurants honest isn't solely the job of TV reporters and college researchers. Federal agencies such as the FDA have the ability to fine -- and in extreme cases prosecute -- restaurants and fish distributors that are deceiving buyers. State inspections of restaurants can also prompt fines of those who engage in fish-swapping.

Fort Lauderdale's Tokyo Sushi Express was cited by the state last month for selling customers tilapia billed as snapper. Imitation crab meat was also sold as real crab.

Manager Rob Rodalis said the restaurant had intended to print tilapia on the menu all along. ``I think it was a miscommunication between the one who printed up our menu. . . . It was a mistake,'' Rodalis said.

Rodalis said the restaurant had been unaware that imitation crab needed to be identified as such on menus.

Both federal and state governments have been criticized for not doing enough to catch seafood scammers. In some cases the restaurants can be the victim, with seafood distributors charging top dollar for what are secretly bargain-basement species of fish.

A federal Government Accountability Office report released earlier this year faulted agencies such as the FDA for ineffective, uncoordinated oversight efforts.

Bob Jones, executive director of the Southeastern Fisheries Association, an industry trade group, said U.S. fishermen ultimately suffer from fewer buyers and depressed prices when restaurants opt for selling imported, make-believe grouper. Jones, who estimates close to a quarter of all restaurants are deceiving customers, said diners should be suspicious of seafood deals that are too good to be true.

``If you pay less than $10 for a grouper dinner, your odds, in my opinion, are nil,'' Jones aid. ``You couldn't sell real grouper like that unless you were stealing the grouper.''

Information on restaurants cited by state inspectors for food misrepresentation can be found online at: http://tinyurl.com/m25796

Friday, August 21, 2009

Mr. Chow v. Philippe Round 2


In a case of spied rice, Mr. Chow says rival restaurateur Philippe Chow's staff sneaked into the kitchen of his new Miami outpost in order to steal trade secrets.

Michael Chow, who started the Mr. Chow chain more than three decades ago, yesterday amended his recent trademark infringement lawsuit against his former employee, Philippe, to include charges of "corporate espionage."

The incident, which was captured by surveillance cameras, happened on Tuesday at the soon-to-open Miami Mr. Chow -- just across the street from Philippe Chow's restaurant.

Disguised as a chef, the 65-year-old spy tried to blend in while the kitchen staff was being briefed on the plans for the new restaurant, attorney Alan Kluger said.

When confronted by an executive chef, the spy said he was trying to appear "incognito," and so that "your boss will not notice," according to the lawsuit.

Philippe and his partner, Stratis Morfogen, discounted the allegations.

"This is beyond bizarre and at this point we have no further comment describing michael chow's delusional and paranoid state of mind," Morforgen said.

Mr. Chow v. Philippe Round 1


It's a battle of the Chows, or Chow v. Chau, depending on who you ask.

Restaurateur and art collector Michael Chow, a.k.a. Mr. Chow, filed a lawsuit against Philippe restaurants this week in U.S. District Court in Miami that lists claims of "misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition and trademark infringement," among others. The lawsuit states that Philippe Chow (formerly Chak Yam Chau), chef and partner of Philippe restaurants, willfully caused brand confusion partly by changing his name.

Philippe Chow and partner Stratis Morfogen have opened Philippe restaurants in New York, Mexico and Miami, with one in Las Vegas in the works. Another is scheduled to open in West Hollywood this fall in the former Dolce space on Melrose Avenue. Michael Chow has Mr. Chow restaurants in New York, Beverly Hills, London and soon Las Vegas and Miami.

Philippe Chow worked at Mr. Chow in Manhattan from 1980 to 2005. According to the lawsuit, Philippe went by the last name "Chau" until 2005 before switching to "Chow." Defendants say he changed his name in 1977 when he arrived in the U.S. from Hong Kong.

Morfogen called the lawsuit meritless and without substance.

"It’s unfortunate that we have to take this action,” said Michael Chow. “Philippe has aggressively and shamelessly worked to confuse people into thinking our restaurants are connected, even to the point of referring to himself as 'Mr. Chow.' "

The lawsuit recalls the brouhaha dubbed "battle of the Wolfgangs," when Wolfgang Puck unsuccessfully pursued a suit last year against Wolfgang Zwiener after Zwiener opened a steakhouse called Wolfgang's Steakhouse in the same Beverly Hills turf as Puck's Cut steakhouse.

“I specifically chose to name my restaurant Philippe to alleviate any confusion with Mr. Chow," said Philippe Chow in a statement. "I have nothing but respect for Michael Chow, and the fact that we have the same last name is pure coincidence."

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

CALLARO’S PRIME STEAK & SEAFOOD SUED BY EEOC FOR DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION



CALLARO’S PRIME STEAK & SEAFOOD SUED BY EEOC FOR DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION

Restaurant Fired Server for Perceived Disability, Association with Disabled Son

MIAMI – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit in federal court announced today that a steak and seafood restaurant in Manalapan, Fla., violated federal law by discriminating against a female food server it regarded as being disabled and because of her relationship to a person with a disability.

According to the EEOC’s suit, Case No. 09-81101-CIV-ZLOCH/ROSENBAUM, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, when Callaro’s Prime Steak and Seafood discovered that the server had a son with a disability, it demanded that she take a prohibited medical test. The EEOC says that when the server refused to take the test, Callaro’s reduced her working hours, scheduled her to work on days when she was unavailable, and ultimately fired her. Callaro’s terminated the server because it regarded her as disabled and because of her association with her disabled son, the EEOC asserts.

“Under the Americans With Disabilities Act, it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an individual who has a relationship or association with a person who has a disability, or because an individual is perceived to have a disability,” said EEOC Miami District Director Jacqueline H. McNair. “The EEOC will continue to vigorously enforce all aspects of the ADA’s employment provisions.”