Napa valley wine train ejects black women for being 'too loud'

[Artistic Skaters]

I guess I get a different message than you when people sign confidentiality clauses for monetary settlements. Discrimination has not been proven & most likely the company admitting to no wrong doing is part of the written agreement, as it so often is in these situations.

 

[leesaleesa]

I live in Northern CA...and live very close to Napa. It's beautiful, but let's just say it isn't the most diverse place. A sea of white people, with a few Asians mixed in. I rarely ever see Black people or Non-Asian POCs there.

So, I'm very inclined to believe this incident was racially motivated. In a yuppy, upper crust (predominately white) place like Napa, a group of loud black people is definitely going to be perceived very differently than a group of loud white people.

Sad to say, it is internalized racism, plain and simple. America has a long way to go to unlearn its anti-blackness.

Seriously? Just because Napa is a "sea of white people" it's inherently racist? Do you have any statistics to base that on, or are you assuming, which you obviously are. Just as you take the word that a group of black women were tossed just for being black. Assuming people are racist because they're "white" is pretty racist in itself.

 

[Coco]

I guess I get a different message than you when people sign confidentiality clauses for monetary settlements. Discrimination has not been proven & most likely the company admitting to no wrong doing is part of the written agreement, as it so often is in these situations.

I can see that you want to make a conclusion about the character of these women or the veracity of their claims from the fact that they signed a settlement, but I think your analysis of the situation is missing that some critical facts.


Once an offer is made that *may* exceed the amount awarded at trial, it is extremely risky to reject that offer as you can be liable for massive legal costs incurred from that point forward.

The court will not value a plaintiff's ability to talk about something anywhere near how a normal person would value it, so the fact that the pre-trial settlement offer includes a confidentiality clause will rarely matter to the court when comparing that amount to the amount won at trial. This is especially true if the plaintiffs are not public figures, such as these ladies.

 

[AxelAnnie]

I live in Northern CA...and live very close to Napa. It's beautiful, but let's just say it isn't the most diverse place. A sea of white people, with a few Asians mixed in. I rarely ever see Black people or Non-Asian POCs there.

So, I'm very inclined to believe this incident was racially motivated. In a yuppy, upper crust (predominately white) place like Napa, a group of loud black people is definitely going to be perceived very differently than a group of loud white people.

Sad to say, it is internalized racism, plain and simple. America has a long way to go to unlearn its anti-blackness.

You might want to open your eyes the next time you wander into Napa. It is very diverse, with a huge population of Hispanics. Look in any school room. Not many blacks, I'll give you that....not too many Russians either for that matter. Napa is very earthy. Yes, it is a tourist destination. Yes it has famous wineries and gorgeous vistas. But that is the center of town. Go to where the people live, and you will see a different story.

 

[AxelAnnie]

Coco - I can't quite follow what you are saying, or the logic behind it.

Trial is always risky. So "may" exceed an amount is specious. They could also get nothing. A sure thing is a sure thing. A risk is a risk and that is what a trial is. Also factored in for both sides is the cost of litigation. I do not know what "massive legal costs" you refer to, but in this case, I don't think the petitioners would be called upon to pay for defendants' legal fees.

And, confidentiality agreements are legally binding on both parties. Were one party to speak out, it nullifies the agreement, and either opens it back up to litigation, negates any remaining payments, or calls for money to be returned.

 

[Artistic Skaters]

I can see that you want to make a conclusion about the character of these women or the veracity of their claims from the fact that they signed a settlement, but I think your analysis of the situation is missing that some critical facts.

IMO the women are entitled to a settlement because there was the completely inappropriate Facebook post made by the train company, as well as other bad/unprofessional procedures followed during this incident. What I dislike are the manipulative press releases used to create a media frenzy by giving out half bits of information & making demands (often noting they are speaking on behalf of wronged citizens everywhere) when they are not going to follow through.

We've been reading the facts as the women & their lawyer wanted to present them to us. Supposedly two women lost their jobs because of this incident. Really, how? They had such a need to share this little bit of information yet gave no explanation about why companies are terminating employees who experienced this bad treatment on their own time on the weekend & didn't violate any laws. They also previously insisted the only acceptable resolution was for the train company to openly admit to discrimination, but as we now read that is not the case. Their story comes to a close without them doing much about discrimination or education against discrimination. So for this case it might have been better to simply pursue the lawsuit against the company's awful business practices without all the fanfare in the name of social justice.