People Wait For Tomorrow's UWS Apple Store Opening
Giuliani Livid Over Bringing 9/11 Trials to NYC
Oreo The Dog Is Dead, Blame Game Is Not
FIT Students Busted For Drug Dealing Get Probation
Pregnant Woman And Two Men Shot In Clinton Hill Drive-By
More sordid details have emerged from that explosive $600 million discrimination lawsuit brought by four ex-employees of Hawaiian Tropic Zone, who accuse executives of ignoring their complaints against former manager Anthony Rakis. At a press conference yesterday, one of the plaintiffs, former manager Giulietta Consalvo—who accuses Rakis of drugging and raping her in the back of a cab in 2006—told reporters, "I want to see him pay criminally. Absolutely, he deserves his freedoms taken away from him. I went through the proper channels, through the corporate . . . chain of command that they tell you to do when you have such complaints...and my voice went unheard."
Consalvo claims that Rakis pleaded with her to keep silent after the incident, imploring her to "please think about my wife," who was pregnant at the time. Which reminded somebody at the Daily News how the couple (pictured) made headlines around the world seven years ago when they decided to go through with their wedding in Manhattan just four days after the September 11th attacks. (The nuptials were broadcast on an ABC special.) They now live in Alexandria, Virginia with their two daughters, and the Washington Post reports Rakis working at Pose Ultra Lounge outside D.C. He told reporters outside his home yesterday that he denies all the charges, which are even more scandalous than originally reported.
It's been known that the bikini-clad waitresses were provided with free or discount accommodations at an Upper East Side walk-up. But it's now emerged that Rakis and other male managers routinely visited, and presumably not to talk about the next day's specials. The suit also claims that Rakis "had sexual relations with at least one of those female employees, and even impregnated one of them." (Neither one is party to the lawsuit.) And big shot chef David Burke, who's accused of groping Consalvo and other female workers during a 2006 party, released a statement insisting he "is not a party defendant to the suit. His name appears gratuitously for reasons known only to plaintiffs’ attorneys. Chef Burke focused his limited time at the restaurant on creating menus and ensuring the food preparation was top quality."
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
So are any of these claims for acts that supposedly took place after 2006? Why wait so long? Did the men not give in to the extortion and threats?
This happened in a cab? Wtf was the driver doing?
I'm wondering the same thing as JCB. Sounds like a lot of circumstantion dirt is being brought up to support the lawsuit.
The rape on the other hand deserves criminal investigation.
circumstantial
Sexual playgrounds? Times Square?
Sexual playground? Duh!
Again, I really would like to know what these women have on their minds...
Good luck with that criminal rape investigation. Seems like it's he said she said, and she's only saying it now that she's part of a $600 million lawsuit.
If you work in a strip club, its obvious what happens there. Don't complain when the obvious happens, and you probably went along with it. The job is sexual harassment by feminist definition. This is more about the $ and fat settlement check (this is a civil case remember) than any justice. This ***** knew what the job description is.
#8- But.. it isn't a strip club.
Not technically, anyway.
Ok, there's no justifying rape if these allegations are true, but isn't it fairly safe to assume that these types of "office hijinks" are more likely to occur than office field trips to church? They dance around shaking their fun bags for a living, get free housing & don't think someone will come to collect one day?
"They dance around shaking their fun bags for a living, get free housing & don't think someone will come to collect one day?"
Very machist, how said dancing removes women's rights?
The dudes get a salary, and profit from the business, so how is that this entitles them to harass their employees? Is not like the dudes are working for free.
The argument of self-entitlement will put any of these sleaze bags in jail in a second.
A restaurant/bar with women dressed in bikinis a sexual playground? REALLY!?! I'm shocked.
@ Amanda Harlech: No idea what "machist" is supposed to mean, but if they work in what's basically a PG strip club, it's hardly like working at the Gap. Gap employees don't get hired for their looks, wear bikinis & given free housing, do they? As Pete wrote, the job is harassment almost by definition & while they probably went along with it while it suited them, the potential for a big settlement check is probably more motivational than anything.
Actually, Stores like the GAP (and J. Crew) certainly DO hire based on looks...
"PG strip club"? Hardly. More like a higher end Hooters but it looks like H.T. wasn't smart enough to prevent some managers from trying crap like this.
let's not forget that fraternizing with management after your shift ends is frowned upon (if you're not hot)
plus, that amplifies your chances of getting better shifts and working high paying private parties...
Machismo
Machismo is a prominently exhibited or excessive masculinity. As an attitude, machismo ranges from a personal sense of virility to a more extreme masculism. In many cultures, machismo is acceptable and even expected. The trait may be seen as the product of runaway evolution, as Frits Staal notes,The peacock's tail, the grotesquely enlarged claw of the male fiddler crab and the machismo of members of the human species are all exaggerated features that may cause injury to individuals that display them but attract females.
Machist is man displaying machismo. If you were to be less afraid of multi cultural references maybe you could know what it means.
There is a considerable difference between being afraid of multicultural references & having no use for them.
like the men in the story were not exemplar displayer of machismo, or the comment of "They dance around shaking their fun bags for a living, get free housing & don't think someone will come to collect one day?" are not in deed a display of machismo? kind of clear to me there is a perfect opportunity for using the word.
In fact, this whole posting revolves around machismo.
No, it revolves around women who either (1) were too stupid to know what they were getting into being employed solely for their looks (2) were opportunistic & waited until they had enough "evidence" of impropriety to take their employers to court.