"Hello my name is Gaytard" Name tag teen forced to wear at Taco John's

[marym625]

Last edited Thu Sep 25, 2014, 02:20 PM - Edit history (2)

After just a few weeks at Taco John's, this teen was given the name tag by the night manager and forced to wear it throughout his shift. Since the kid wanted to keep his job, he put up with the humiliation for the night. All the while the night manager calling him that ugly name loudly, in front of customers.

Though corporate Taco John's states they do not condone such discriminatory practices, they also stated, it's not their problem.

This teen had the courage to walk in the next day and quit. He also refused to give them back the name tag.

The store is claiming that the teen made the name tag himself and thought it was funny. Yeah, most teens want to make fools of themselves and belittle their identity publicly.

Please visit the ACLU site and sign the petition. Then spread it around. It is past time to end discrimination.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/lgbt-rights/hello-my-name-not-gaytard-how-may-i-help-you

Direct link to petition. 31K signatures, 40K needed

https://www.aclu.org/secure/tyler?ms=web_140924_lgbtrights_tacojohn%27s_BOR


story back in June:

http://www.kdlt.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=36837&Itemid=57#video_player

ACLU Post about filing with SD EEOC

https://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/equal-employment-opportunity-commission-eeoc-filing-against-taco-john

[dipsydoodle]

1. Downright nasty that.

Nobody could pull stunt in the UK - illegal under our laws which cover hate.

[marym625]

2. Good for the UK.

The hate crime laws here are convoluted and vary from State to State. Even the Federal law is hard to prove.

I understand that corporations sell franchises and that, to an extent, each franchise is responsible for their employees, etc. But if you have your name on it you should have to take some responsibility for what happens.

I hope this kid and the ACLU rip Taco John's apart. Had the corporate office taken any responsibility there wouldn't have to be a lawsuit and we probably never would have known about it.

[yeoman6987]

65. Taco Johns?

Never heard of the place. Can't even boycott it. Horrid working conditions obviously.

[MADem]

3. Taco JOHN's? Sounds like a hellish marriage between Taco Bell and Papa John's--two of the

worst fast food franchises going!

I'm sure there are customers who saw the nametag--should be easy enough to prove.

Kid should have video'd his quitting, though. Nowadays, it's harder for people to get away with that kind of abuse.

I will say that the management of that place sounds like they are desperately scrambling. This doesn't sound convincing to me at all:

“At Taco John’s, we have a policy that we don’t discriminate against anyone,” Scott said. “This blew out of proportion before we even got a chance to investigate. We didn’t even get to defend ourselves. Everyone thinks we’re guilty. Don’t believe everything you read on the Internet. Not everything is true.”
He said a manager and two employees - including Brandt -- were involved.
“We never forced him to wear the name tag,” Scott stated. “He wore it himself. I have an employee who wrote me a statement and is signing it saying so.
“From what I understand, they were all joking around. Everyone has a nickname here, and he wanted a nickname. (Gaytard is) what he picked for a nickname. He wasn’t forced to wear the name tag. He asked the manager to make that name tag for him. He handed it to him. He didn’t tell him he had to wear it. He put it on himself and created the situation. He said the manager forced him to do it. The manager didn’t force him to do anything.”
Scott said Brandt became upset when he was told to go home early Monday for “not doing his job” and resigned early the next morning.
Brandt scoffed at the idea that he asked for the nickname and chose to wear the name tag.
“Do you really think I’d want to go around making a mockery of who I am?” he asked. “It’s really irritating to think someone could believe I would want that label.”

http://www.yankton.net/community/article_b1f60648-fce0-11e3-8113-001a4bcf887a.html

I think the franchise HQ, instead of adopting a "hands off" attitude, should really excoriate this individual asshole franchise owner. Their statement was mealy-mouthed at best. They should do their OWN investigation, simply for the Public Relations aspect of it all to show that they put their money and their time where their mouth is. I'm sure there's some kind of clause in their franchise agreement that prevents a franchise owner from damaging the brand name--maybe they need to invoke that.

[marym625]

4. I had to double check the name too

I lived in the South for a bit and have been too Taco John's but with this, I thought it must have been Papa John's.

I completely agree with you on everything you said. I have to believe that they do have customers and/or employees that have backed Brandt or the ACLU wouldn't have taken the case.

[MADem]

5. Someone should move to grab the video now, before the franchise owner makes it go away.

They've gotta have security cameras running--most places do now, they're so cheap to install and operate now.

[marym625]

8. hmmm. good point

I would have to believe that the ACLU has tried to do that. I suppose it is possible that the cameras are only trained on the customers. Or don't include any audio.

There is no way an out teen would make such a name tag or want to wear it. The argument is just stupid. But that's not surprising.

[MADem]

16. They'd be trained on wherever the cash registers are, so that would be the

areas behind the counter, the drive through window if they have one, and sometimes they'll put one on the door as well.

They should be able to figure out how many customers were in there...if it's a small enough town, maybe even ID a few of them.

[marym625]

21. I would imagine that the ACLU has requested them

Since the fact Brandt wore the name tag is not in dispute, they wouldn't be able to use a video from another evening. Though that doesn't mean they couldn't destroy it or say it doesn't exist.

[KittyWampus]

7. Perhaps a wait and see attitude is warranted. Remember the waitress who claimed someone wrote a slur

on the check? Or the waitress who claimed she was discriminated against as a lesbian?

[marym625]

9. except the company

Is not disputing either that the manager made the name tag or that the kid wore it.

[KittyWampus]

12. except-

“From what I understand, they were all joking around. Everyone has a nickname here, and he wanted a nickname. (Gaytard is) what he picked for a nickname. He wasn’t forced to wear the name tag. He asked the manager to make that name tag for him. He handed it to him. He didn’t tell him he had to wear it. He put it on himself and created the situation. He said the manager forced him to do it. The manager didn’t force him to do anything.”
Scott said Brandt became upset when he was told to go home early Monday for “not doing his job” and resigned early the next morning.


As for the young man's assertion that no one would willingly use such a nickname… I point back to the two waitresses who made their bogus claims.

[marym625]

20. You're entitled to your belief on this

Certainly can't convince you otherwise. Being part of the LGBT community, I don't believe the story from the manager at all.

As someone else said on this thread, it doesn't really matter which is true. If the manager made him wear the name tag, he's guilty of discrimination and harassment. If he allowed Brandt to wear the name tag, he's guilty of discrimination and harassment.

I highly doubt the ACLU would take on the case if they didn't have proof, or at least corroboration, that Brandt's story is true

[marym625]

39. I will add

the waitress made up a note. This is not a made up name tag. The waitress was looking for publicity. Brandt was looking to keep a job.

Very different scenarios.

[MADem]

14. I think, from my hurried reading of the links, that the franchise owner and the night manager are

related.

The franchise owner is defending his relative.

I think the kid might be telling the truth. Time will, of course, tell, as you say.

A customer or ten will turn up and add their viewpoint--and if there's security camera footage, that might tell us a lot, too. And if there is NO security camera footage (i.e. it's been erased) that will tell us plenty, as well.

[KittyWampus]

15. As someone posted below… allowing the use of "gaytard" even willingly or as a joke

show the manager is an idiot who needs to be canned.

[Ms. Toad]

93. This happened in June,

And is only now receiving significant publicity - after the ACLU is satisfied enough that there is substance to the allegations that it has agreed to expend its resources to represent the teen. Having been through the process of trying (and failing) to get a national advocacy group on board for a local case (and then being successful in obtaining support when that case went up on appea,), I can tell you that putting money into a case is not taken lightly.

[marym625]

95. Thank you Ms. Toad eom.

[marym625]

11. by the way

Thanks for the link!

[ProfessorGAC]

18. We Have Them in The Far South Reaches of Chicagoland

They're better than Taco Bell, (less salt), but this pretty much pushes me away.

[MADem]

19. I guess they are a fairly wide regional franchise, but this is the first I've ever heard of 'em!

It's like Chik-Fil-A or Sonic or Waffle House or Whataburger or In and Out Burger--almost zero franchise penetration in the upper northeast, though I have seen those in other parts of the country.

[ProfessorGAC]

34. I Haven't Even Seen Them Much Further North Than My House

And i live 60 miles south of downtown Chicago. But, they do have them as one goes deeper toward mid-state. I am nearly positive they have them in Bloomington and Champaign.

[marym625]

63. Oh I guess that's where I saw one

Used to live there.

[MADem]

84. I'd like to see the national office disavow that franchise holder.

Maybe they will, now that this is "getting real" in terms of heading to court.

IF I were the national HQ, I wouldn't pair with the franchisee--I'd say to the kid "Yeah, you're right, what an ass, we don't endorse him, he wasn't upholding our high standards..." straight out of the gate. And if they don't HAVE any standards of conduct, maybe now's the time to get some!

[Comrade Grumpy]

50. I know. You'd think they'd at least go for Taco Juan's.

But they've been in South Dakota since forever. I remember one in Huron being there since about the 1970s. It's still there.

[MADem]

82. One thing I like about DU....

I learn these odd little tidbits about corners of USA that I would never otherwise know!

If I saw one of those places in, say, a movie, I'd think it was a made-up name. Now I know otherwise!

[dipsydoodle]

67. Or a toilet.

.

[MADem]

72. Classified by the type of foodstuff ingested!!!!!

[jberryhill]

76. It's an interesting model they have.....

You order the food and they throw it right into the toilet and flush.

Saves time and skips the middleman.

[MADem]

81. Ha ha ha! It probably gets to the can just that quickly, regardless!! nt

[CBGLuthier]

6. Even though I am sure their excuse is bullshit, it really does not matter.

I would never patronize a place that either FORCED a kid to wear such a thing or ALLOWED a kid to wear such a thing. Both are major lapses in judgement and show that the manager, at the very least, is incompetent.

[marym625]

10. Perfect response!

[monmouth3]

13. If he consults my attorney I'm pretty sure his college education will be paid for..Call Saul!..n/t

[marym625]

22. So put them in touch! :) eom

[Brickbat]

17. "Since the kid wanted to keep his job, he put up with the humiliation for the night."

Teach your kids that humiliation is not a necessary part of being employed.

[marym625]

23. I think he was just too shocked at the time

But once he was out of the environment, he realized he doesn't have to take it.

The article on the aclu site states in part;

"After I got home, I decided I just couldn't go back for more abuse at Taco John's. I want my little brothers and sisters to look up to me and know that I stood up for myself. So I went to the restaurant the next morning, turned in my uniform, and told the daytime manager why I was quitting. He tried to make me give the name tag back, but I told him I was keeping it."

But you're right. Parents need to teach kids to stand up for themselves.

Thanks!

[tazkcmo]

32. If only it were true.

The humiliation of working full time and still qualifying for government assistance. The humiliation of having gone into thousands of dollars in debt for that master's degree and making $9.00/hr. I'm with you, humiliation should not be a job requirement but more and more it seems it is.

"Be happy you have a job!" The bar get's lower and lower...

[marym625]

68. How sad

That SO MANY people think they have to accept that, "be grateful you have a job" crap. How anyone can argue against Unions is beyond me.

[TorchTheWitch]

24. this story is really old

From what I recall it also turned out to be a hoax. He was interviewed on tv once and then the truth of the matter came out and that was the end of that. It was years ago. There's a reason why no attorney took his case. Actually, he wrote that article himself at the ACLU blog site, and there's no indication that they've taken his case other than his claim that they have. Never in my life have I seen that a case has been taken by the ACLU where they haven't given notice of it themselves.

I'm surprised no one seems to remember this story.

[marym625]

25. The ACLU Filed a complaint on Tuesday

They have taken the case

https://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/taco-john-equal-employment-opportunity-commission-eeoc-filing-charge

[TorchTheWitch]

38. well why in the world didn't you say that in the first place?

The kid's own blog link that was the only thing you mentioned certainly didn't explain that.

Still, it's telling that no attorney was willing to take his case even after all this time. The kid lied about what happened which is why the original story fell off the news almost immediately. His own friends owned up to it being a hoax. It was all over DU at the time.

[marym625]

42. What?

First, yes, I guess I should have linked both in the OP

Second, you just said "years ago" but this happened in June. I think you must be thinking of something else. It also says in the ACLU story they filed with a private attorney.

[Ms. Toad]

94. Please provide links to it being all over DU at the time. n/t

[marym625]

96. somewhere in the thread

Someone did a search. There was one post in June, then my posts. That's it

[jeff47]

26. Yeah, that's why the story is dated 9/24/14

Oh wait....

[marym625]

29. I don't understand your point

They filed on the 23rd and put the story up the 24th.

https://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/equal-employment-opportunity-commission-eeoc-filing-against-taco-john

September 24, 2014

The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of South Dakota, and co-counsel Stephanie E. Pochop have submitted charges to state and federal agencies against Taco John's of Yankton, Inc. and Taco John's International Inc. The discrimination charges were filed on behalf of Tyler Brandt, a 16-year-old employee who was forced to wear a "Gaytard" name tag while working.

According to the discrimination charge, the night-shift manager at Taco John's forced Tyler to wear a name tag that read "Gaytard" on the night of June 23, 2014, and loudly addressed Tyler as such in front of customers for the duration of his shift. Brandt returned to the restaurant the following day to resign from his position.

The discrimination charge, which was filed with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the North Dakota Department of Labor, alleges that Taco John's violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the South Dakota Human Rights Act.

[jeff47]

35. I responded to a poster who claimed the blog post was very old.

Yet it was dated yesterday. Kinda proving they were lying. Hence the "Oh wait..." statement.

[marym625]

36. I'm sorry

I should have looked at who the reply was to. Thought it was me.

Thank you!

[TorchTheWitch]

40. because it's being brought up again after all this time

Jeebus, google it. It's an old story that was all over DU at the time.

[jeff47]

43. Which is why you claimed it is an old blog post written by the kid

when it's a new blog post, written by someone else.

And why you claimed no attorney would touch it, and the ACLU filed suit yesterday.

You're batting .000.

[TorchTheWitch]

48. No. Read what I said

I said it was an old story and the current blog post having been written by the kid without any confirmation by the ACLU.

Like I said, google the story. It was a few years ago that this happened and was all over DU back then. The kid did an interview on the news once, THEN journalists looked into it and found it was a hoax and never reported on it again. Not my fault you don't remember this and that it was all over DU at that time. Maybe you weren't here then.

[herding cats]

56. You're confusing this with something else, perhaps?

This happenend in June of this year.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/south-dakota-teen-claims-manager-forced-him-to-wear-gaytard-name-tag-at-fast-food-job/

Yankton Teen Alleges Discrimination From Name Tag

June 25, 2014, 9:55 PM by Jared Ransom

The ACLU has file.

ACLU Files Suit Against Taco John’s Concerning Name Tag Incident

ACLU Files Against Taco John’s

Posted: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 2:56 pm | Updated: 10:25 pm, Wed Sep 24, 2014.

From P&D Staff Reports | 0 comments

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a federal discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission asserting Taco John’s violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the South Dakota Human Rights Act.

According to a press release from the ACLU, Taco John’s of Yankton, Inc. and Taco John’s International Inc. are named in the suit.

The charge stems from a case involving Tyler Brandt, who alleged in June the Yankton store forced him to wear a name tag reading “Gaytard.”

“What happened to me was so incredibly humiliating,” Brandt said in a press release from the ACLU of South Dakota Wednesday. “My hope is that this filing results in a policy to ensure that no other Taco John’s employee will ever experience this kind of harassment.”

The charge was filed in Sioux Falls.

http://www.yankton.net/community/article_effa92fc-4424-11e4-86c4-dfa06b707e25.html

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Filing Against Taco John

[TorchTheWitch]

71. I definitely remember this case particularly the photo.

I can't believe no one remembers this on DU at the time that it happened which was a HELL of a lot longer than a couple of months ago. I'd do a DU search if I had a star. I have no idea why the ACLU is saying this happened just last June. I just got home, so I haven't had a chance to look for the old stories about this. I definitely remember that he made the accusation, a news channel interviewed him, and it was after that interview that the company made their response and it was definitely a lot longer ago than just last June. There were a couple threads here at least at the time that it came out. And if it was just last June where was the story at that time? Whenever it was that the story first came out the ACLU wasn't involved, nothing was filed, the kid didn't have an attorney, etc. I just can't be the only person that remembers this story when it first came out a long time ago.

I hope someone that can do a search on DU does so and can find when that was. I know I'm not mixing this case up with something else. I don't even know if a DU search even goes back as far as a year or more either.

This is so bizarre.

[tblue37]

73. A 16-year-old kid could NOT have been working at a Taco John' "years ago"! nt

[herding cats]

74. I did the search for you

Two threads showed up since 2011 with the word "gaytard" in the headline in the main forums. One was this one the other one is from June of this year. You participated in the other thread from June as well. Which explains why you found it familiar. There's also another one in LGBT Civil Rights and Activism with this same current story linked to it posted yesterday.

Previous DU discussion on this topic here: http://upload.democraticunderground.com/10025154135#op
You were active in the thread which is why it seemed so familiar to you.

The incident in question according to the ACLU filing states it took place on June 23 of 2014.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Filing Against Taco John's

September 24, 2014

The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of South Dakota, and co-counsel Stephanie E. Pochop have submitted charges to state and federal agencies against Taco John's of Yankton, Inc. and Taco John's International Inc. The discrimination charges were filed on behalf of Tyler Brandt, a 16-year-old employee who was forced to wear a "Gaytard" name tag while working.

According to the discrimination charge, the night-shift manager at Taco John's forced Tyler to wear a name tag that read "Gaytard" on the night of June 23, 2014, and loudly addressed Tyler as such in front of customers for the duration of his shift. Brandt returned to the restaurant the following day to resign from his position.

The discrimination charge, which was filed with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the North Dakota Department of Labor, alleges that Taco John's violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the South Dakota Human Rights Act.

https://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/equal-employment-opportunity-commission-eeoc-filing-against-taco-johns

[TorchTheWitch]

77. so what were the threads about from 2011?

Was it this case? Because that's even longer ago than I'd thought. But the one from last June seems like the original thread I remember. WTF? June was only a few months ago but I still feel like this happened years ago!

Thanks for doing the search.

[herding cats]

78. There were none.

My search range was from 2011-current with just the results I posted above.

[TorchTheWitch]

80. I have to be going crazy then

I swear I STILL feel like this was WAY longer ago than just a few months even after looking over the original thread here about it.

[herding cats]

83. Maybe it's been a long few months?

It just seems like it's been longer than it has? I know I've had years like that before myself!

[marym625]

85. June feels like both yesterday and a lifetime ago

But a few years ago the kid would have been about 12

[marym625]

92. I have a question

I just went through the old thread and was surprised to see that you weren't the only one saying they believed it was a hoax. Even now, when you have seen that another employee quit over it at that time, that he does also have a private attorney and that the ACLU has taken the case, you have not retracted your statement that it's a hoax.

Why? Why say it then and what would have to happen for you to believe it?

This kid could lose even with it being true because in SD there is no protection for LGBT people.

[Cal Carpenter]

110. Why are you so invested in creating doubt about a story like this

rather than just admitting you were wrong - on the thread from June and this thread here, over and over and over again?

[TorchTheWitch]

111. because like I said in the thread in June

that I don't believe the kid, and I still don't. What, just because the ACLU took his case it magically became truthful? The ACLU and private attorneys everywhere take up cases that are bogus every day, all day, everywhere. It doesn't make the client's story any more truthful just for having counsel. Every attorney knows that in any case truthful or not without absolute hard evidence that proves a complainant's story is not true (and even often with such hard evidence that it isn't) there's going to be a settlement anyway for the simple fact that it's cheaper than carrying the case all the way to court. This kid is going to get a settlement whether his story is true or not especially because it became public. And I still believe that this kid's story isn't true for the same reasons I said in the thread in June.

It has nothing to do with LGBT folk. My own brother as I've said here many times is gay and I have a VERY strong affinity for the trials that LGBT people face every day because of discrimination. I just don't believe his story and I said why in that other thread. The only thing that has changed since then is the ACLU taking up his case which means absolutely nothing as to whether or not it's a truthful story.

[marym625]

112. amazing

So the fact the company admits that the manager made the name tag, the fact the ACLU doesn't take cases they can't prove are true (do some investigation into that if you don't believe me) the fact that the ONLY people that have said Brandt's story is not true is management and the fact other employees and customers (it was a customer that first reported it) back him and another employee quit their job over it doesn't convince you.

In other words, the only way you'll believe it is if the manager admits it's true.

But it has NOTHING to do with LGBT folk because your brother. ...

[Jamastiene]

117. There are some people who refuse to believe anything

they do not want to believe, whether it is true or not. So depressing.

[marym625]

118. Very

When he had so many posts calling hoax but won't answer what it take to believe it, you know what the real answer is.

[Cal Carpenter]

114. Given that you've insisted that it's been years since this particular story was proven a hoax

and refused to even admit that you were wrong on those counts, I'll take the rest of your... er... analysis with a grain of salt.

Cheers.

[TorchTheWitch]

115. I've insisted no such thing

and have since learned in this very thread that despite my feeling that this was a lot longer ago than last June that in fact that's when it was. I don't care what you or anyone else think about why I believe the kid's story isn't true, and you're free to decide that it must be because I have something against LGBT folks if that makes you feel better despite that not being the case at all. I just don't believe this kid's story based on the evidence known... all the reasons I gave in the original thread.

There are no witnesses that back him up. The one person that has said she believes his story didn't witness it and was also the one that put it out on the internet originally. To date, none of his co-workers, friends, his boyfriend nor any customer has said they witnessed this nor even that they believe his story. To me that's a big red flag and it should be to anyone else not looking at the story purely through a LGBT lens. Since I'm very pro LGBT rights and social acceptance I would LIKE to believe that his story is true yet I still don't.

In looking at ANY story I leave any pro or anti this or that at the door, and it's a shame that in so many many different cases on just about anything that others don't. And I'm also big enough to say so when something I believed turned out to not be true as I have done in this very thread concerning the time that the original story came out. Though I still FEEL that it was a hell of a lot longer ago than just last June evidence others presented showed me that in fact I was wrong about that, and I ASKED for that evidence because I actually wanted to know if my memory of when it occurred was accurate. And should anything arise that should change my mind about what I believe about his story being true or not I'll say so, but so far that hasn't happened.

It's likely that no one will ever know whether or not he was telling the truth though the ACLU will get him a settlement anyway in which the store admits no wrongdoing for the simple reason that it's cheaper than taking it to court as is what happens in most cases whether they're true or not.

[marym625]

113. wtf is right

Yeah, employees quit there jobs every day because other employees want to be called "Gaytard" and then quit.

No convincing someone that obviously has bias.

[Jamastiene]

116. Some people refuse to believe that anti-gay actions lead

to bullying and discrimination. It is depressing for those of us in the GLBT community who have suffered some of the cruelest hate imaginable.

[LiberalAndProud]

105. Advanced search on "gaytard" returns this thread and

this one from June. Maybe your memory places it longer ago than it actually was.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025154135

[marym625]

66. Here again you say "years"

You have to be confusing stories. This happened in June. Not years ago. It was never deemed a hoax. The coworker came forward to back Brandt immediately and quit at the time.

Maybe something happened years ago that was a hoax that reminded you of this. But June 2014 was just a few months ago

[MADem]

28. Not a hoax. The ACLU has filed-here is a recent news report on the story from the local paper there.

http://www.yankton.net/community/article_effa92fc-4424-11e4-86c4-dfa06b707e25.html

ACLU Files Suit Against Taco John’s Concerning Name Tag Incident


Posted: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 2:56 pm | Updated: 10:25 pm, Wed Sep 24, 2014.
From P&D Staff Reports | 0 comments

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a federal discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission asserting Taco John’s violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the South Dakota Human Rights Act.
According to a press release from the ACLU, Taco John’s of Yankton, Inc. and Taco John’s International Inc. are named in the suit.

The charge stems from a case involving Tyler Brandt, who alleged in June the Yankton store forced him to wear a name tag reading “Gaytard.”
“What happened to me was so incredibly humiliating,” Brandt said in a press release from the ACLU of South Dakota Wednesday. “My hope is that this filing results in a policy to ensure that no other Taco John’s employee will ever experience this kind of harassment.”
The charge was filed in Sioux Falls.

The incident happened in June, so it's not that old a story in the big picture. Those wheels grind slowly when it comes to the law...

[marym625]

30. Thank you

what the heck is this stuff that it's a lie and the ACLU didn't take the case?

I'm blown away.

[MADem]

41. I'm guessing people are confusing the initial reports back in June with this update, and they

are thinking this is a re-hash rather than a step forward in the process. The franchise owner tried to do a little media seeding with his half baked defense that "He wanted the abuse" but that didn't fly. Apparently the state has some fairly specific laws about discrimination, too, that he ran afoul of. Never mind that he used poor judgment as a leader/supervisor of a minor teen IF his story had even had a scintilla of truth to it.

I think this manager guy is in hot water, and the time between June and now was used by the ACLU to verify that the young man forced to wear the nametag was telling the truth.

The newspaper stories make it clear, too, that this is an update, and they are indeed suing.

[marym625]

44. Thank you

I missed any of this in June. Don't know how I did, but I did.

I don't know of cases where the ACLU goes in blind. If nothing else, there has to be some merit to it.

He's a kid. Not surprised he didn't understand the ramifications of embellishing at the time. Not excusing it, just saying'.

[MADem]

69. I don't think the kid embellished--I think the night manager did!

I think the kid is telling the truth, and the ACLU found a sufficiency of witnesses to go forward.

It just took them a few months to get their ducks in a row....

[marym625]

70. Immediate action

is not always the correct course. Glad the kid kept the name tag!

And I agree, the management response is just plain stupid.

[tazkcmo]

27. Moot point

Doesn't matter if the teen wanted to wear it, was idea or not. The bottom line is the manager is responsible for the conduct of the employees and is PAID to ensure the employees meet the acceptable standards of the establishment. "Gaytard" is an extremely offensive slur against both the gay community and mentally challenged community. The manager should not have allowed this. So, if it was the kid's idea, fire the manager for allowing him to wear it. If it was the manager's idea, fire him him because he's a poor manager and an asshole.

[marym625]

31. Exactly!

[TorchTheWitch]

45. from what I recall the manager wasn't there at the time

and his friends that he worked with admitted that it was a hoax because he was angry about having been fired or reprimanded or something. It's been so long I can't remember all the exact details. That's why at the time the news dropped the story like a rock, and the kid wasn't able to get an attorney. ANY attorney would have taken up this case for free had his story been true. And had it been true I would have been glad of it.

There are plenty enough cases where people are fired because of being LGBT - my own brother having been through that several times back when LGBT people had to stay in the closet. It pisses me off when people use that issue in a hoax because they're pissed off about something else entirely. As it should anyone.

[tazkcmo]

47. See post 25

In response to your first assertion of this nature, please.

[TorchTheWitch]

49. that was the first one I responded to

Keep up.

[tazkcmo]

52. Which is why I referred it.

Don't believe I deserve your rudeness either. Nor will you have another opportunity.

[TorchTheWitch]

54. What in the world are you talking about?

I just said I saw it and responded to it. What's rude about that? Geez, you must not have been here long to see what actual rudeness on DU looks like.

[whathehell]

33. Petition signed. n/t

[marym625]

37. YAY! Thank you!

THat's the whole point of the post!!

[whathehell]

75. You are welcome, Madam.

Back at you.

[marym625]

46. News Story from back in June

A coworker also quit over it. Don't see anything that says this was a hoax

http://www.kdlt.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=36837&Itemid=57#video_player

[TorchTheWitch]

53. whoever she was she was never mentioned AT THE TIME

Why didn't she come forward back then?

Whatever. If you want to pretend this is some kind of new story, have at it.

[marym625]

60. The fact this was just filed with the EEOC by the ACLU

is new.

The petition is new.

She did come forth in June. That story I linked is from June.

Thanks for your input.

[PeaceNikki]

79. It's just weird that you keep trying to insist the young man lied or that it's a "hoax".

The ACLU would have to have pretty compelling evidence to take the case. They aren't amateurs and have access to the same news stories as you do.

[herding cats]

57. It's not a hoax.

I don't know what that's all about, but it's a genuine story and the ACLU has filed.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Filing Against Taco John

September 24, 2014

The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of South Dakota, and co-counsel Stephanie E. Pochop have submitted charges to state and federal agencies against Taco John's of Yankton, Inc. and Taco John's International Inc. The discrimination charges were filed on behalf of Tyler Brandt, a 16-year-old employee who was forced to wear a "Gaytard" name tag while working.

According to the discrimination charge, the night-shift manager at Taco John's forced Tyler to wear a name tag that read "Gaytard" on the night of June 23, 2014, and loudly addressed Tyler as such in front of customers for the duration of his shift. Brandt returned to the restaurant the following day to resign from his position.

The discrimination charge, which was filed with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the North Dakota Department of Labor, alleges that Taco John's violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the South Dakota Human Rights Act.
https://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/equal-employment-opportunity-commission-eeoc-filing-against-taco-john

Thanks for posting this. I'm glad to see the ACLU picked up this case!

[marym625]

61. Thank you!

It's amazing that we live in such an instant gratification society that June is old news. Hell, that yesterday is old news.

Thanks again!

[herding cats]

88. I just realized I forgot to mention I, too, had signed the petition.

All thanks go to you for bringing this to my attention. I somehow had missed this before.

[marym625]

89. Thank you!

[steve2470]

86. thanks for the update, glad to know he will get justice

No young person should have to put up with that kind of nonsense. No one, period !

[herding cats]

87. I completely agree.

No young person, or person of any age, should have to put up with that kind of nonsense. Sadly, many do every day. Hopefully this one instance will help to inspire more to speak out and help things to change.

[NuclearDem]

51. Wow, this is incredible.

Until now, I had no idea 12 year olds could be managers at Taco John's.

Also, petition signed.

[marym625]

58. I think at Papa John's too

Thank you!!

[AtomicKitten]

55. I hope he sues the shit out of the company.

That bit of humiliation is going to cost them big.
Shame on them.

[marym625]

59. I sure hope so

But I know a gay teen in SD. They're not exactly all in this century yet.

[AtomicKitten]

62. It's heartbreaking really.

I'm California born and raised and I just don't get/cannot fathom the cruelty and humiliation the LGBT community has to deal with in parts of the country. It is gut-wrenching.

[marym625]

64. I know it's so much worse in so many places

But even here in Chicago, the only time it isn't on my mind is when I'm in "boys town" or "girls town." Otherwise, you think about being different and having to not say somethings you would say elsewhere.

To live in areas like this poor kid though, has to be like living in the 1940s.

[GeorgeGist]

90. Hopefully customers will make it TJs problem.

[marym625]

91. That would be nice

But I think the majority of the stores are in areas where people tend to be homohaters

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

97. I get that that hatred and prejudice

leads to this kind of behavior, but you really do have to throw in a lot of stupidity, as well. geesh

[marym625]

98. prejudice and stupidity go hand in hand

[WI_DEM]

99. Oh, he made it on his own!? right. Taco John's has joined my boycott list

I signed the petition, too.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

100. Never heard of Taco John's

But I wouldn't boycott a whole chain just because of the actions of one local, independently owned store.

[marym625]

102. The corporate HQ

Is taking absolutely no responsibility. Not even investigating. You don't think a corporation, that profits from its franchises, has any responsibility for its employees?

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

103. In this particular instance and based on the little I have read

no. The store is locally owned and operated, and the corporation has no say in the hiring and firing. I have enough reasons to hate numerous corporations without adding this to the list. If the owner had been the one doing this, then I would expect the corporation to take away his franchise, although I'm sure things like this would have to be written into the contract, and probably are.

[marym625]

104. Which owner?

If you mean the owner of the franchise, it was his son that did it.

Your prerogative. But it is things like this, when corporations take the "not my problem" attitude when franchises, with their names on it that they make money from, that allow things like this to continue to happen.

Thanks for your reply and input.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

106. Do you support taking away HUD housing

from women whose kids commit crimes?

What else do you blame parents for? The father may be a real ass and homophobe, but I don't know this, so I'm not calling for his head at the moment.

I'm not one to blame parents for everything their kids do.

[marym625]

107. Whoa! Really?

If my kid acted like this in my workplace, I would damn sure take responsibility. Even if not my kid but even more so if my kid. That doesn't even come close to saying a parent is always responsible for what their child does. Adult child or not

And so what if this is not the owner who did it. How is the corporation which name it holds not in anyway responsible? Can't have it both ways. Either the corporation takes responsibility for what happens in its name or forget being able to have franchises.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

108. We were talking about boycotting a franchise I've never heard of

The legal system is going to sort this out, and, hopefully, in favor of the young man who was treated badly.

Meanwhile, I wouldn't boycott an entire franchise for the behavior of one person.

[marym625]

109. I wouldn't boycott an entire corporation for the behavior of 1 person IF THE CORPORATION took action

we're all entitled to our own opinions

Good luck and thank you

[marym625]

101. Awesome!

Well they admit that the manager made it but say he asked him to and wanted to wear it. Yeah, every guy teenager I know wants to be called "Gaytard"