Gorilla Coffee Is Suing the NY Times

Remember the Gorilla Coffee walkout of last spring? Two weeks after all of their employees abandoned the Park Slope mainstay due to a “perpetually malicious, hostile, and demeaning work environment," they reopened with new staff and a positive, if unapologetic, attitude. Now, according to Fucked In Park Slope, Gorilla Coffee has filed suit against the New York Times, a NYT reporter and eight former employees for participating "in the preparation and publication of [a] false, defamatory, malicious and libelous article."

The Times article in question includes the aforementioned quote about the "demeaning work enviornment." The complaint, which FIPS learned of via an anonymous tip, but which they allege to have seen "with [their] own damn eyes," goes on to say, "as a result of the false and injurious e-mail which was printed, published and circulated by NYT, the content of which was furnished by the individual defendants, with express and implied malice and with design and intent to injure Gorilla in its good name and reputation, Gorilla seeks punitive damages against all defendants, jointly and severally, for their egregious, wanton, reckless and negligent conduct, in a sum to be determined upon the trial of this action."

You can see the whole complaint here.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Ben Yakas in Food on October 23, 2010 3:40 PM

Comments [rss]

yellowhouse

I can't patronize Gorilla anymore after this law suit. The fact that they are attempting this proves to me that the employees did the right thing. Gorilla is suing coffee shop workers? Really? It's so pathetic. While Gorilla has been my fav for years, there is plenty of other good enough coffee.

Abbott

Just when people were starting to forget that whole nasty little incident, they're bringing it up again with this lawsuit? Seems like an ill-planned move to me. Instead of hiring a lawyer, they should have hired a publicist to do some damage control. Maybe the owners really are the high-riding bitches their former employees claim. I do know one thing: nobody likes a little anger served with their coffee.

usernamee

and just FYI, a new csfe did open last week about 2 blocks south serving Counter Culture product. they actually smile at you, don't seem eager to sue anyone, and the coffee is good.

Tex

You want to see another SLAPP/frivolous lawsuit? See http://texsquixtarblog.blogspot.com

Court Street Lawyer

To: Any former employees who are being sued

This is fucked up. I want to defend you.

Paul Hale, Esq.

26 court St. Ste 1901

Brooklyn, NY 11242

(718) 554-7344

Call me a.s.a.p.!

cutlass

Bunch of god damn retards. I hope this costs them their business.

usernamee

fucking gorilla. i give you so much of my money. why do you keep pulling shit that makes me want to stop buying your product?

can't wait until counter culture opens across the street.

random transplant

If the Folgers Guy with the donkey and big sacks of beans had that attitude back in the '80's, we'd all still be drinking Mc Donald's out of Styrofoam cups.

Coffee is wonderful, and worth the walk, you exploitative capitalist lazy swine.

usernamee

huh?

Thespis

Yeah, good luck with that. (I'd actually be worried about the NYTC bringing an anti-SLAPP lawsuit in response -- though that's not my area of expertise, so who knows whether one would be available.)

But more importantly...who still goes there? Hasn't this place shown itself to be pretty much the type of place that you shouldn't patronize? There's other good coffee in the world.

hunter.blatherer

They seem to be at least two thirds as crowded as before. Park Slopers tend to be very socially conscious, as long as it doesn't involve making the smallest of sacrifices. (See comment number 4, below.)

Brainwash

You're suing the NYT for publishing something they didn't write? Good luck with that.

PKMKII

Not a snowball's chance in hell. To prove libel, you need to meet three standards:

<li>The Statement must be damaging to the accusing party</li>

<li>The Statement must be false, and</li>

<li>The Accused must have printed the Statement fully knowing it was false</li>

To be successful against the NYT, Gorilla would need to show evidence that the e-mail was false, and that the Times knew it. If they prove the e-mail to be false, they'll be successful against the former employees, but not the NYT. Proving the Times knew it was false is going to be about nigh on impossible, without access to internal NYT memos and e-mails.

nyguy7

I can't see how they can sue over a he said/she said story. It's not like the NYT didn't talk to the owner or Gorilla to get her side, they did. All they had to do was confirm the email came from a former employee at the time of the walk out.

Either way, some judge has got to realize the stupidity of this law suite and toss it.