Oregon Woman Has Last Laugh After Being Told ‘I Don’t Serve Black People’ At Gas Station
An Oregon woman was awarded $1 million in damages after a jury found she was discriminated against by a gas station employee who told her, “I don’t serve Black people” while trying to get gas in Multnomah County.
The jury’s award this week to Portland resident Rose Wakefield, 63, included punitive damages of $550,000.
Wakefield said she stopped for gas at Jacksons Food Store in Beaverton on March 12, 2020, and saw the attendant, Nigel Powers, ignore her and instead pump gas for other drivers.
When she tried to ask for assistance he said, “I’ll get to you when I feel like it,” according to Kafoury.
As noted by CBS News, “attendants are required to pump fuel for motorists at gas stations in Oregon’s larger population centers including Portland and the nearby suburb of Beaverton.”
After being denied service at the pump, surveillance video showed Wakefield go inside to ask for help. Another employee followed her back outside to pump her gas. Kafoury said as she was leaving, Wakefield asked Powers why he refused to help her and that he said, “I don’t serve Black people.”
“I was like, ‘What world am I living in?'” Wakefield told KGW. “This is not supposed to go down like that. It was a terrible, terrible confrontation between me and this guy.”
During the following week, Wakefield complained twice to managers, but her phone calls were largely disregarded, Kafoury said.
Wakefield’s lawyer, Gregory Kafoury, said that “the attendant was never questioned by the company about the racist comments, and was disciplined only for failing to serve customers in the order of their arrival.”
K&M VICTORY: JURY AWARDS $1 MILLION IN RACE DISCRIMINATION CASE AGAINST JACKSONS FOOD STORES
GAS ATTENDANT: “I DON’T SERVE BLACK PEOPLE”
Read about it here:https://t.co/lUTSnVPlHZ
— Kafoury & McDougal (@KafouryMcDougal) January 25, 2023
A statement from Jacksons Food Stores Thursday said the company has a zero-tolerance policy for discrimination of any kind and that it respectfully disagrees with the jury’s ruling because “our knowledge does not align with the verdict.”
You must be logged in to post a comment Login