Current Events > Bartender forced to pay back $4,000 after bar gets robbed at gunpoint.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Kegran posted...

He was never compelled to perform an illegal activity though.

Jesus. Fucking. Christ. How are you this dense?

Being required to repay the money is the illegal activity. Fucking hell, how are you not getting this? @Kegran

Isn't that shit kind of illegal? It's like expecting gas station attendants and cashiers to pay the till for someone driving off after fueling without paying.

I'm not sure if it breaks any laws, but at the very least he could argue that he was coerced into signing the agreement

Alucard188 posted...

Isn't that shit kind of illegal? It's like expecting gas station attendants and cashiers to pay the till for someone driving off after fueling without paying.

I would think so. Management took advantage of this poor guy's situation where he desperately needed a job. They also took advantage of his mental state after being held at gun-point, which is an extremely stressful thing and can likely cause PTSD. The owners are scum.

TheOtherMike posted...

How are you this dense?

These types of routine deductions are not usually an issue or the subject of a claim for wages. Deductions made for other reasons damage to company property, educational expenses paid by the employer, unreturned uniforms or equipment, negative PTO balances, or other debts owed to the employer are often where an employer runs into trouble.
Nevada law requires the following three conditions be met in order to make a payroll deduction for these other reasons:

1. The employer has a reasonable basis to believe the employee is responsible for the amount to be deducted
2. The deduction is for a specific purpose, pay period/date, and amount
3. The employee voluntarily authorizes, in writing, the employer to deduct the amount from their wages

^^^Cause above literally states that it might not be illegal^^^
This information was already given to you. The case will hinge on whether or not the employer had a reasonable basis to believe the employee was responsible. A judge will decide it, likely in the employee's favor.

Kegran posted...

^^^Cause above literally states that it might not be illegal^^^

Really? Because...

The employer has a reasonable basis to believe the employee is responsible for the amount to be deducted

Does being robbed qualify as "reasonable to believe the employee is responsible"? If you don't respond to anything else here I want to see your answer to this question @Kegran

Kegran posted...

This information was already given to you.

And I already told you it didn't say what you thought it said. Full stop: you're wrong. I and Shab have directly linked and quoted why you're wrong. Your responses do not apply to a literal fucking robbery. Stop arguing with facts.

Fam_Fam posted...

what is illegal about him agreeing to pay back the money?

Are you 5? He isn't responsible for that money. Thats why they have insurance...it's not the bartenders money or responsibility. Typical bootlicker attitude.

Kegran posted...

He was never compelled to perform an illegal activity though. I don't think what you posted says what you think it says.
Anyway, this is no longer worth my time. Also of note: my time is worthless.

You should just walk away now. Youre wrong. There is no more necessary discussion about this point.

TheOtherMike posted...

Does being robbed qualify as "reasonable to believe the employee is responsible"?

Maybe. Depends on the circumstances.
The original article states:
There is no evidence whatsoever that Edward knew these individuals or had anything to do with their actions, the complaint said.
Have you put all the pieces together yet? The reason this exists is because this will be the basis of the case. Did you read that?

Kegran posted...

Maybe.

Yeah, you're done, troll.

TheOtherMike posted...

Yeah, you're done, troll.

Pretty sure you're the one trolling here.
And I don't really care.
The point is, the complaint would have stated this contract was illegal and unenforceable if it were in fact illegal, which it isn't under the correct circumstances.

Kegran posted...

I think the Republican wet dream would have been shooting the robber if I'm not mistaken.

As a Republican this is correct lol

But that is BS, the guy should win this lawsuit and deserves damages. What that business did is definitely illegal.

Fyi, I've read multiple articles about this story. Regardless, if the employer thought the bartender was responsible for robbery losses, he would have been terminated and charges would have been pressed. Instead they coerced him into an illegal contract literally hours after the robbery. This was blatantly illegal from the get-go as there was no reasonable basis to assume he was responsible, and they would have to provide that first in order for the contract to be valid. But hey, keep digging that hole and insisting this kind of repayment contract can be legal when it involves a robbery.

Man bout to get PAID

UnfairRepresent posted...

However, hours later, his employers told him it was his job to pay the money back. They offered him a repayment contract and forced him to work in unfavourable conditions, the lawsuit said. It added that Mr Parker was worried about losing his job and therefore signed it.

Over the next few months, an amount of $300 was reportedly deducted from each paycheck until it equalled the amount stolen by the gunman. The lawsuit also said that this harassment by his employers led him to major anxiety and panic attacks.

Here's what I dont understand, dude is a bartender in Vegas. Why would he be so afraid to find a new job which should be easy?

Well they caught the robbers. Where's the money? That's who should be getting the money from

voldothegr8 posted...

Here's what I dont understand, dude is a bartender in Vegas. Why would he be so afraid to find a new job which should be easy?

Yeah that didn't make sense to me either. Why be so desperate to keep working for someone who would try this shit. I'd quit on the spot

Balnazarr posted...

Typical bootlicker attitude.

I don't think you've read all my posts here. Thanks for the insult.

Psyloshsr posted...

You should just walk away now. Youre wrong. There is no more necessary discussion about this point.

I'm not wrong. It's not illegal to engage in this sort of contract.
Perhaps the business alleges that the employee did not follow proper security procedures such as locking the door, or keeping money outside of the safe. I can't find a statement from the business.
And I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying it's not straight up illegal.
The guy should definitely win this case.

Kegran posted...

It's not illegal to engage in this sort of contract.

Its not illegal to have reimbursement contracts. Its completely illegal to have reimbursement contracts with employees for stolen money. So this kind if contract is illegal.

Unless the robbery was an inside job (and it isn't), he shouldn't have to pay back the money.

bladegash posted...

So this kind if contract is illegal.

Then why isn't the main complaint for this case that the contract is illegal and unenforceable?
I think a lawyer would have clearly stated that the contract by it's very nature was void.
I personally believe that this contract is bogus, and I'm just arguing the legal portion.
Employers can attempt to hold you liable for stolen property in most states if they have reason to believe it was due to negligence.

were they expecting him to fight off robbers at gun point for $4000?

why dont they go fuck themselves

eston posted...

Yeah that didn't make sense to me either. Why be so desperate to keep working for someone who would try this shit. I'd quit on the spot

"If your job sucks why not just quit and get a better one?" is peak sheltered logic

No comprehension whatsoever of a lack of options, responsibilities or employer focused society.

Reminds me of Ben Shapiro's climate change rebuttal of "why don't people by rising sea levels just sell their house?"

UnfairRepresent posted...

"If your job sucks why not just quit and get a better one?" is peak sheltered logic

No comprehension whatsoever of a lack of options, responsibilities or employer focused society.

Reminds me of Ben Shapiro's climate change rebuttal of "why don't people by rising sea levels just sell their house?"

Generally I'd agree with your point, but he's a bartender in Las Vegas. It can't be hard to find another gig.

eston posted...

Yeah that didn't make sense to me either. Why be so desperate to keep working for someone who would try this shit. I'd quit on the spot

This is pretty naive. Its very difficult to quit a job without having another one lined up or solid liquid savings unless you live with your parents or something. Being a bartender living in Vegas, it probably isnt a stretch to say he didnt have a huge savings account. If you cared to finish the article, youd see he had to move out of state when he stopped getting shifts. It wasnt as easy as walking into the next job.

Kegran posted...

Then why isn't the main complaint for this case that the contract is illegal and unenforceable?

... That is the main complaint. The very opening paragraph in this topic reads:

A Las Vegas bartender has filed a lawsuit against his employers for allegedly being forced to pay back money that was robbed from the business at gunpoint

If it wasnt illegal, then he never had a case to begin with, and there would be no lawsuit.

Kegran octupling down that he thinks he has a leg to stand on is funny.

Its actually worse for the bar if the guy can produce that contract. Its proof and evidence. Should be a slam dunk for a lawyer. Its why you dont put stuff like that in writing.

Alucard188 posted...

Isn't that shit kind of illegal? It's like expecting gas station attendants and cashiers to pay the till for someone driving off after fueling without paying.

Before pre-paid pumps many gas stations would make attendants pay for drive-offs or fire them.

So, did the employer got back his $4000 through insurance, AND $4000 from the bartender as well? That would be fucked up if he did.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Edward knew these individuals or had anything to do with their actions, the complaint said.

So, he was accused of being an accomplice to the crime?

At first I felt bad for him, but if he later signed something saying he'd pay it back he was a fucking idiot. No job is worth that. $300 out of every paycheck? How much were they paying him and why would he accept anything like that instead of finding another job?

Fuck him and the bar owners. Next.

Many people are desperate to hold onto their job. At-will employment is fun. Companies just claim they fired you for "budgetary reasons" if they even give one.

ExtremeLuchador posted...

Many people are desperate to hold onto their job. At-will employment is fun. Companies just claim they fired you for "budgetary reasons" if they even give one.

Fuck that. Taking $300 out of your paycheck every week you might as well be unemployed. He should have stood up to them from the start. I can't imagine being so pussified to begin to accept the employers terms even for a second.

Depending where you work a bartender can make good money. Maybe he thought it was worth sticking around until they took him off the schedule.

Stuff like this makes me glad I'm unemployed

Caution999 posted...

Management took advantage of this poor guy's situation where he desperately needed a job.

*thinks deeply about the current state of Capitalism in the USA*

very odd to hear a Republican express concern about that. what happened to the "you should be happy you even have a job" attitude?

ExtremeLuchador posted...

Depending where you work a bartender can make good money. Maybe he thought it was worth sticking around until they took him off the schedule.

So, only now he's suing them? What happened to all that fear suddenly?

I don't pity the fool. Seems it would have been more beneficial to his job to tell them no than file a lawsuit later.

Could he even sue? A lawyer told my cousin your employer can deduct money from you as long as your paycheck reaches at least minimum-wage afterwards.

LeoRavus posted...

So, only now he's suing them? What happened to all that fear suddenly?

I don't pity the fool. Seems it would have been more beneficial to his job to tell them no than file a lawsuit later.

They demoted him the second he'd paid up

Don't worry, people should tip 40% more than usual to the bartender and he can make up that money easily. Poor bartender and poor employer, customers should just eat the bill. That's how CE has educated me on how tips work.

bladegash posted...

... That is the main complaint. The very opening paragraph in this topic reads:

If it wasnt illegal, then he never had a case to begin with, and there would be no lawsuit.

people certainly file frivolous lawsuits all the time. no one said it would result in anything, only that he filed it. filing a lawsuit is not any evidence of illegality or wrongdoing

Imagine actually signing a "repayment contract" instead of telling the employer to go fuck themselves and telling the story on r/antiwork.

The labor agencies move very slowly. People have bills to pay.

ExtremeLuchador posted...

The labor agencies move very slowly. People have bills to pay.

He was losing $300 per paycheck. He could've just started working at another bar.

How competitive are Las Vegas bartending jobs?

ExtremeLuchador posted...

How competitive are Las Vegas bartending jobs?

extremely, they can make like $1k a night

So you can see why a guy wouldn't just up and quit if he can get 1k per night.

Don't you guys tip bartenders? Maybe he was staying for the tips, and regulars he had.

Fam_Fam posted...

people certainly file frivolous lawsuits all the time. no one said it would result in anything, only that he filed it. filing a lawsuit is not any evidence of illegality or wrongdoing

Okay true. I was speaking more from the perspective that he knew if it would be a waste of time and money for him to take meaningless legal action. But I'll take that, I misspoke.

Yet it is 100% illegal to make an employee pay for business damages, the only thing employers could ever dock pay for (aside from shit like insurance, taxes and the like) is direct employee damages, even then depending on the state some would require proof of willful wrongdoing. So in most cases an employee is still protected if the direct employee damage was an accident.

He's going to own that bar.

VigorouslySwish posted...

extremely, they can make like $1k a night

Probably why he agreed then. Can probably have it paid off by a month if he's not living beyond his means or close enough he's living paycheck to paycheck

He shouldve told them to fuck off.