Tag Archives: lawsuit

Reno Nevada Mayor Schieve Declares She is Uninformed

13 Tuesday Feb 2018

Posted by in About Reno, Business, Communication, Consulting, Crime, Crisis Management, Employee Retention, Ethics, Government, Honor, Human Resources, Journalism, Management Practices, Politicians, Politics, Public Image, Public Relations, Relationships, Respect, Traditional Media, Violence in the Workplace, Women

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Reno Mayor Hillary Schieve held a press conference on Thursday, 1 February. It’s purpose was to inform the public about an accusation filed with the City of Reno in October (or November) regarding a sexual assault claim. Mayor Schieve’s three-minute-or-less press conference was an apparent attempt to reprise the role of Sergeant Schultz from the 1960’s television show, Hogan’s Heroes.

If You Can’t Dazzle Them With Brilliance…

Mayor Schieve and the staff of the City of Reno were apparently responding the previous day’s article in the Reno Gazette-Journal. It disclosed a sexual assault claim by a City of Reno contract employee against former Revitalization Manager Bill Dunne. He allegedly exposed himself in a car to the employee and attempted to force her to perform a sex act.

During her micro-press conference Mayor Schieve said:

Last night I was made aware of sexual assault allegations and I want to make sure that our residents know that we take this extremely seriously at the city of Reno…

Mayor Hillary Schieve

In the press conference, Reno city officials made a point to note that no police report was filed. It is unclear why almost no information was disclosed during the media event, other than to announce that the victim did not file a police report.

Reno officials did not explain why the Human Resources Director, nor the City Attorney failed to report the complaint to police. They were aware of the complaint in November. Nor did they explain why the man accused of a sex crime was allowed to resign without further action. Nor did they explain why the Mayor and the City Council members were not made aware of the situation immediately.

Bill Dunne resigned two weeks (10 November 2017) after the complaint of sexual harassment and assault was reported to Reno’s Human Resources Director. Dunne stated that his reason for resignation:

I feel I have done everything I was hired to do, so I am tendering my resignation to pursue other opportunities…

Bill Dunne

Dunne said nothing about being accused of sexual assault.

Victim Feared Reprisal

The victim of Dunne’s alleged behavior waited until she was about to resign before making her complaint against him because she feared of reprisals. When she gave her notice and informed to the Human Resources Director of the complaint, she indicated a desire to stay on until a replacement could be found. According to the statement, the Human Resources Director told the victim:

Today can be your last day if you’re uncomfortable. We can just turn off your email and mail you your check

Reno Attorney’s Staff: Don’t Believe the Women!

The press conference came almost three weeks after another Reno Gazette-Journal article about sexual harassment complaints against the Reno City Manager Andrew Clinger. This article discloses a motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by two female city employees.

In that suit, they claim that Clinger sexually harassed them. Among the accusations, he is accused of touching one of the woman on her leg with sexual intent. He is also accused of sending inappropriate text messages; however, Clinger used an application to delete the messages.

After three women filed sexual harassment complaints with the Human Resources department, Reno City Attorney Karl Hall investigated the claims. Two of the three women filed the lawsuit after they felt Hall blew the investigation.

In his motion to dismiss the women’s lawsuit, Reno’s Deputy Attorney William Cooper accused the women and two others of conspiring against City Manager Clinger. The City’s conspiracy theory suggests an effort to force him out of his position.

Cooper cited an ‘independent’ review, paid for by the city, that confirmed the primary allegations as meritorious. It also determined the secondary allegations could not be verified. Cooper’s motion ignored the findings of the primary allegations. His motion to dismiss seemed to based on the findings of the secondary allegations.

Good Ole Boys Club

Perhaps not ironically, Clinger was the person who hired Dunne in 2016 after Dunne faced political pressure to leave his job as Commissioner for Planning and Development in Troy, New York.

As for the City Manager, Clinger quit his position in October 2016 and was hired a few months later by Governor Brian Sandoval as a Senior Advisor on issues relating to economic development, workforce development, and education. Clinger was given a $288,000 severance deal from the City of Reno. He is now being paid over $117,000 in his role for Governor Sandoval. 

Both of the women involved left their positions late in 2016. They stated that the work environment at the City of Reno had become too hostile to continue employment.

Four women felt they had to end their employment with the City of Reno because of a sexually toxic environment, but Mayor Hillary Schieve wants the citizens to know that she takes sexual assault seriously…after she reads about it in the news.

Taco Bell says taco meat is 88% real beef, not 36%

28 Friday Jan 2011

Posted by in Branding, Customer Relations, Ethics, Management Practices, Pride, Public Relations

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

by Paul Kiser
USA PDT [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype:kiserrotary or 775.624.5679]

Paul Kiser

Article first published as
Taco Bell Says Taco Meat is 88% Real Beef, Not 36%
on Technorati.com

On Wednesday, Taco Bell issued an updated response to a lawsuit claiming that its taco meat was only 36% beef.  In this statement Taco Bell CEO and Chief Concept Officer Greg Creed gave facts and figures to challenge the assertion that its taco meat consisted of largely fillers and extenders.

According to Taco Bell, its taco meat consists of 88% beef, and up to 10% of the remainder consists of water and/or spices. Creed again repeated that Taco Bell would ‘vigorously defend’ the claims against the quality of its products. (Read the full statement here.)

This statement clearly refutes the heart of the matter raised in the lawsuit.  Two previous statements implied a denial of the accusations, but stopped short of offering facts and figures regarding the content of fillers and extenders of its product.  The lawsuit was widely reported on Tuesday by most major news outlets and many online blogs.

More Articles

Business: Public Relations, Management, and Social Media Related

Rotary Related

Science Related

Personal Experience Related

Our Country and History Related

Taco Bell beefs up its response: Our taco meat is real, the lawsuit is bogus

27 Thursday Jan 2011

Posted by in Branding, Communication, Crisis Management, Customer Relations, Ethics, Management Practices, Pride, Public Relations

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

by Paul Kiser
USA PDT [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype:kiserrotary or 775.624.5679]

Paul Kiser

(NOTE: Below is a statement by Taco Bell Corp. made yesterday regarding the lawsuit filed against them for false advertising stating that their taco meat was only 36% beef. I am publishing this statement now with an additional article on the issue to follow.)

From: Greg Creed, CEO and Chief Concept Officer of Taco Bell Corp.

UPDATED STATEMENT REGARDING CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT

“The lawsuit is bogus and filled with completely inaccurate facts.  Our beef is 100% USDA inspected, just like the quality beef you would buy in a supermarket and prepare in your home.  It then is slow-cooked and simmered with proprietary seasonings and spices to provide Taco Bell’s signature taste and texture.  Our seasoned beef recipe contains 88% quality USDA-inspected beef and 12% seasonings, spices, water and other ingredients that provide taste, texture and moisture.  The lawyers got their facts wrong.  We take this attack on our quality very seriously and plan to take legal action against them for making false statements about our products.  There is no basis in fact or reality for this suit and we will vigorously defend the quality of our products from frivolous and misleading claims such as this.”

What is in Taco Bell’s recipe for seasoned beef?

“We’re cooking with a proprietary recipe to give our seasoned beef flavor and texture, just like you would with any recipe you cook at home.

For example, when you make chili, meatloaf or meatballs, you add your own recipe of seasoning and spices to give the beef flavor and texture, otherwise, it would taste just like unseasoned ground beef.  We do the same thing with our recipe for seasoned beef.

Our recipe for seasoned beef includes ingredients you’d find in your home or in the supermarket aisle today:

  • 88% USDA-inspected quality beef
  • 3-5% water for moisture
  • 3-5% spices (including salt, chili pepper, onion powder, tomato powder, sugar, garlic powder, cocoa powder and a proprietary blend of Mexican spices and natural flavors).
  • 3-5% oats, starch, sugar, yeast, citric acid, and other ingredients that contribute to the quality of our product.

Our seasoned beef contains no “extenders” to add volume, as some might use.  For more information about our ingredients go to http://www.tacobell.com/”

PR Epic Fail: Taco Bell ‘meat’ only 36% beef?

26 Wednesday Jan 2011

Posted by in Business, Customer Relations, Ethics, Management Practices, Public Relations

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

by Paul Kiser
USA PDT [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype:kiserrotary or 775.624.5679]

Paul Kiser

Article first published as
PR Epic Fail: Taco Bell meat only 36% beef?
on Technorati

(NOTE:  This article was submitted to the Technorati.com editors on Tuesday evening (January 25) and published Wednesday evening. On Wednesday, Taco Bell Corp. gave a definitive statement of the quality of its meat and claims that its taco meat is 88% beef.  To read this statement and a follow-up article, click on this link: Greg Creed’s statement on Taco Bell’s taco meat.)

It’s not too early in the year for the first entry in the “Worst PR of 2011” contest and that dishonor may go to Taco Bell. The fast food chain is facing a controversy that has all the makings of a classic Public Relations Epic Fail award.

Cat treats or Taco Bell taco meat? Which has more protein?

News media (See USAToday article) and online blogs have buzzing about a lawsuit that is seeking class action status against the Yum! Brands subsidiary stating that the taco meat at Taco Bell is only 36% beef, which is less than the USDA minimum of 40%. The suit seeks to have Taco Bell either rename their products or add more beef.

This controversy would be bad enough with just the lawsuit, but the company counter attack will undoubtedly generate more public focus on the issue. Taco Bell’s strategy raises the stakes in a Public Relations battle that now has to be 100% successful or else the company will lose all credibility for the foreseeable future. The response so far seems to indicate that Taco Bell is walking a fine line in denying the accusations about their product.

According to Associated Press reporter, Bob Johnson, the first company response was from Taco Bell spokesperson, Rob Poetsch:

“Taco Bell prides itself on serving high quality Mexican inspired food with great value. We’re happy that the millions of customers we serve every week agree,” Poetsch said. He said the company would “vigorously defend the suit.”

Poetsch’s response carefully avoids denying the accusations, but is worded to imply that since the customers buy the product, it must be okay.

Later the Greg Creed, President and Chief Concept Officer of Taco Bell Corp. put out a stronger, but still carefully worded statement that again walked a fine line in denying the accusations. His statement said that: 1) Taco Bell buys beef, 2) the beef is 100% USDA inspected, 3) the process begins with simmering beef, 4) seasonings and spices are added, and 5) the ‘signature Taco Bell’ taste and texture results from the process. He then added that the ‘lawyers….got their “facts” absolutely wrong’ and that Taco Bell plans to take legal action for false statements made about their food.

While this sounds like a denial, Creed avoids saying anything about the use of fillers and extenders in their taco meat by referring to all added ingredients as “seasoning and spices.” According to the Taco Bell website the ingredients for the ground taco meat include the following (ranking added):

#3 – Isolated Oat Product, #8 – Oats (Wheat), #9 – Soy Lecithin, #12 – Maltodextrin, #13 – Soybean Oil (Anti-dusting Agent), #15 – Autolyzed Yeast Extract, #17 – Caramel Color, #18 – Cocoa Powder (Processed With Alkali), #19 – Silicon Dioxide, #21 – Yeast, #22 – Modified Corn Starch, #25 – Sodium Phosphates

Both the website and Creed refer to these ingredients as “seasoning”, implying they add taste to the product and are not fillers or extenders. However, if the lawsuit is accurate, Taco Bell may have a hard time convincing its customers that ground taco meat requires 64% ‘”seasoning” and only 36% beef.

More Articles

Business: Public Relations, Management, and Social Media Related

Rotary Related

Science Related

Personal Experience Related

Our Country and History Related

HR/Security Hot Topic: Should you watch your employee’s personal Internet activities? (Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc.)

28 Thursday Oct 2010

Posted by in Branding, Business, Communication, Consulting, Crisis Management, Customer Service, Employee Retention, Ethics, Government Regulation, Honor, Human Resources, Information Technology, Internet, Management Practices, Pride, Privacy, Public Relations, Re-Imagine!, Recreation, Relationships, Respect, Rotary, SEO, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations, Violence in the Workplace, Website

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Paul Kiser
USA PDT  [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype:kiserrotary or 775.624.5679]

Paul Kiser

One of the hottest topics in the world of employment is whether or not an employer should monitor his or her Internet activities. This is a subject I’ve written about before, but it is an issue that is still emerging and has yet to have any significant case-law to provide guidance to employers.

It is well-known that a large number of employers perform a ‘Google’ search on the Internet before they hire an applicant, but now companies are feeling the need to continue to monitor an employee’s Internet activities after hire. Many experts, especially those involved in employee liability prevention support an employer’s right to monitor an employee’s Internet activities even when those activities occur off-duty and offsite. The logic is that it is prudent to aware of anything an employee might say or do that could embarrass the employer, or any indication that the employee might take an action that might involve the company and its facilities.

These are rational arguments, but I believe that monitoring an employee’s activities is opening the door to bigger liability issues. Sound odd? Here’s the scenario I see happening in three Acts.

Should the Employer be Big Brother?

Act One: A busy-body employer or manager casually checks his or her employee’s Facebook, MySpace, and/or Twitter accounts. The employer might even do a Google search on an employee from time to time. When the employer or manager finds something that they see as objectionable they confront the guilty employee and take the proper action. It becomes known throughout the company (and the employee’s family) that the employer monitors its employee’s personal Internet activity.

Act Two: An employee has been reprimanded for content they have posted on the Internet. Six months later the same employee posts information on the Internet that he  is considering suicide and describes in detail how he is going to kill himself. Two weeks later the employee carries out the suicide as described. The family is aware the employer monitors the employee’s Internet activity and sues the employer claiming that the employer should have reasonably been aware of the planned suicide and taken action.

Act Three: Companies find themselves with two polar opposite choices. Either the company does not monitor their employee’s Internet activities or the company assigns resources to constantly monitor the Internet on every employee to insure they capture any relevant data for which the company should take action.

I was trained in Human Resources under the policy that what the employee did on her or his own time was off-limits to the employer unless it had a direct impact the job performance. That policy has had to be adjusted in a world where work and off-duty time can often be hard to differentiate, and where drug testing, researching credit scores and background checks have become standard operating procedure for many companies. However, an employee’s personal Internet activities is almost impossible to track in a society that is increasing involved in hours of daily online social networking. The question is whether an employer wants to be liable for monitoring its employees 24/7/365 and being held responsible for taking the appropriate action, or whether the employer would be better served by not being sucked into liability issues that can be avoided by simply not playing the role of Big Brother ?

I know which strategy I would recommend to my clients.

More Articles

Business: Public Relations, Management, and Social Media Related

Rotary Related

Science Related

Personal Experience Related

Our Country and History Related