This forum post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Prosecco62. Show Details
This forum post is hidden because you have submitted an abuse report against it. Show Details
In Response to Re: PAULA DEEN FIRED BY FOOD NETWORK:
This all came about because of a lawsuit filed by an ex-employee. See below
Posted by nyadrn
I was struck by the following quote from the article:
"Jackson’s complaint also accuses Deen of racism and enabling Hiers’ behavior."
Paula Deen's brother may well be an alcoholic and Paula Deen may even be involved in a "co-dependent" relationship with him but it really seems beyond the pale to suggest that what she is doing is suit-worthy rather than an expression of a psychologically destructive pattern of behavior that requires therapy rather than derision and punishment.
Another point I'd like to make is that Jackson's description of Deen's vision for her brother's wedding sounds like something out of a trashy novel. On it's face, from my perspective, it is quite fantastic to think that Deen would risk her whole career contemplating, in front of an employee and in highly discriminatory, highly inflammatory and quite descriptive language, the vision Jackson says she expressed...no matter how much she might have trusted said employee. I am not saying it didn't happen but I have reservations that it happened exactly as Jackson asserts in her complaint or her deposition.
The "plantation" quote I referred to came from a television newscast and I had not read any of Jackson's actual deposition nor the words from the complaint. I'd like to point out that this is coming from Jackson's memory and perspective and may or may not be true or reliable. As the complainant, she has a secondary gain to achieve...celebrity and a large monetary award if she is found credible. I doubt that any actual monetary damages would be as significant if Mr. Hiers were not related to Paula Deen. By attaching Deen's name and saying she enabled her brother's alleged bad behavior, it increases the perceived value of any monetary damages.
Of course, this lawsuit is in the preliminary stages and all of this is just speculation. Maybe Jackson is hoping for a quick settlement and will be on her way. If she is going for the "whole enchilada," and what she remembers of her employment is actually 100% truthful, a big monetary award for damages is absolutely justified.
If, OTOH, she is mistaken in what she heard or perceived and has attributed false statements and intentions to Paula Deen, subjecting her to national public outrage, scorn, ridicule and harm to her reputation and career, THAT would be outrageous.
This is a sticky situation and boils down to what jurors might believe if the case actually comes to court. I don't think we should rush to judgment and I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Jackson should be careful or she may wind up to be just like Jodi Arias who said too much, told too many lies and gave too many details for her story to be believed. If that's the case, the individual jurors may accept parts of her story or none of it and Jackson would be wise to keep that foremost in her mind if she wishes to prevail.
Addendum: I read through Deen's deposition after I wrote this post. It's enlightening in many ways. Ms. Jackson doesn't necessarily come across as a sympathetic figure and Paula Deen may be a lot less sophisticated about business and the people she has had in her employ than onlookers might assume. JMO, but reading between the lines, her business is like a "leaky vessel" and she needs to have tighter control over what goes on in the restaurants. It doesn't seem to be in her personality to take on the role of a no-nonsense CEO. Again, JMO...as always.