This is a pretty legally feeble position by @shakeshack considering the corporation specifically empowered their employees (publicly) to take action against police just last week.
I don't know if the police will sue them; but I'm quite certain @shakeshack 's tweets last week puts them on the hook to pay for the legal defense from "the action" by their employees.
Here's the tweet (instructions) in question. Here's the problem:
"Black Lives Matter" = known violent entity against cops.
"Our responsibility" = collective (Corp./employees)
"The fight" = Company authorized violence
"must be accompanied by action" = corporate authorization
"Black Lives Matter" = known violent entity against cops.
"Our responsibility" = collective (Corp./employees)
"The fight" = Company authorized violence
"must be accompanied by action" = corporate authorization
They don't have solid legal footing to stand on.
If they don't legally defend their employees they're screwed (civil action).
If they do legally defend their employees they're screwed (civil action).
It's likely up to the police union, but would be financially worth it.
If they don't legally defend their employees they're screwed (civil action).
If they do legally defend their employees they're screwed (civil action).
It's likely up to the police union, but would be financially worth it.
They'll never put their @shakeshack CEO or COO on the witness stand to defend that tweet, or the call to action it expresses.
Any decent lawyer would shred him/her by taking it apart word by word and asking him/her to define.
Like I said, it's a no-brainer.
Any decent lawyer would shred him/her by taking it apart word by word and asking him/her to define.
Like I said, it's a no-brainer.
