On one hand, why would a company like Benjamin Moore pick on an employee. But on the other hand, this is too much of a coincidence. Weird situation
Even if we assumed these were "racially insensitive", should that matter? Last I checked you were allowed to be an asshole in this country.
This is pretty simple. If they created the colors after he started he has something of a case. Albeit a petty one at that
I just blasted the biggest NotSatoshiNakamoto in the toilet a little while ago. I think I saw some bones in there.
I said something of a case. Which is to say there will be questions about the origin of the names. tucker and clinton are pretty common names so this probably a frivolous lawsuit though
The question is whether the company was small enough that the people making advertising decisions knew him or knew of him. I wouldn't just dismiss the case out of flabbergast.
As of 2000, Benjamin Moore had less than 300 employees. It's not like this guy was a flake in a blizzard. http://www.benjaminmoore.com/en-ca/for-your-home/about-us
Any confirmation on when those colors began marketing? I'm not a fan of frivolous lawsuits or racial pandering, but Tucker wasn't just a black man, he was a gay black man in a warehouse. It's not above reason that he was targeted for an inside joke among office guys. Not a fan of the LGBT movement either, in case you were wondering.
Hostile work environment. I bet this one has some legs. Really fucking stupid thing for a company like that to target the guy. Throw in the fact that he's member of at least two protected classes, they deserve to get raked just for their own stupidity.
He worked in the digital marketing department. I doubt he was in the warehouse - unless I missed something.
Then I'm guessing the offices were in a separate building? "Working in a warehouse" in pretty much a technical term. But I hadn't realized that he worked in the MARKETING department. Interesting.
Yep. Also would be interesting to see the paper trail on the decisions to come up with those names. On the face of it, sounds like the plaintiff would survive summary disposition motions.
