Verizon Sued After Tech Punches Customer In Face 493
suraj.sun writes "A Verizon customer filed a lawsuit after the tech the company sent out got a little punchy. Instead of fixing the customer's problem, the tech allegedly hit him in the face. The New York Post says the tech attacked the customer after he asked to see some ID before allowing access to the apartment. From the article, '"You want to know my name? Here's my name," Benjamin snarled, slapping his ID card into Isakson's face, according to Isakson's account of the December 2008 confrontation. "The guy essentially snapped. He cold-cocked me, hit me two or three solid shots to the head while my hands were down," said Isakson, a limo driver. He said the pounding bloodied his face and broke his glasses. But things got uglier, Isakson said, when Benjamin squeezed him around the neck and pressed him up against the wall. "He's prepared to kill me," Isakson said. "That's all I could think of." The customer broke free and ran away. The Verizon tech then chased the customer until he was subdued by a neighbor who was an off-duty cop.'"
More to the Story? (Score:5, Insightful)
Racism (Score:2, Insightful)
I expect the tech assumed racism from being asked for his ID, much like Dr. Gates did in the encounter in Boston.
Hero (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:More to the Story? (Score:5, Insightful)
And he's still running service! (Score:5, Insightful)
Verizon spokesman Rich Young said the company has "zero tolerance for any sort of unethical or illegal behavior" and noted Benjamin was not convicted of any crime. "In the months since this incident, his conduct has been blameless. As a result, we will not take further action," Young said.
Wow, they've gotten no complaints from the HUNDREDS of homes they've sent this guy into since "this incident." Makes you feel warm and trusting all over, doesn't it?
Apparently "zero tolerance" doesn't mean the same thing to Verizon that it does where I work. Do they at least give their service techs "___ Days without Attacking a Customer" buttons?
I'd much rather read this... (Score:5, Insightful)
In "The Armed Citizen" in American Rifleman than on Slashdot.
Re:Why does he need ID? (Score:5, Insightful)
He shouldn't need to show identification. All Verizon guys walk around with an entourage of hundreds of jumpsuited, smiling techs and assistants. You really can't miss them.
Yea right, My wife had a PGW worker ( Gas Works) knock on the door saying that he needed to check for a possible leak
He was wearing PGW garb but when she asked for ID he said it was in the truck and would be right back. He never did come back.
We called PGW asking and they said that no one was scheduled for our address. ALLWAYS ask for ID before letting someone into your house.
Re:More to the Story? (Score:1, Insightful)
While it's possible the tech just snapped and went apeshit on the guy (after all, there are violent headcases out there...), why do I get the feeling that there's a whole lot more to the story than we're getting from the victim?...
There's no excuse for the attack - none. If it were me, that Verizon guy's brains would be on the floor from a .45 and I'd still sue Verizon and the tech's family for producing such an asshole and for the cost of the bullet. No, there wouldn't be any charges filed against me because I feared for my life in my own home.
Re:Yay, lets sue the company he works for! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Yay, lets sue the company he works for! (Score:5, Insightful)
Respondiat Superior? (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless the dude had a history of violence/instability that they were aware of and ignored, I can't see why VZ should be held liable.
The dude should be charged criminally with assault.
Re:This tech still has a job with Verizon (Score:1, Insightful)
The fact the Verizon tech still has a job is interesting.
"In the months since this incident, his conduct has been blameless. As a result, we will not take further action," Young said.
The lesson here is if you work for Verizon you get to punch the customers as long as you only do it every now and then.
The employee still has a Job most likely because he is not White !!
And that's not funny !
Re:More to the Story? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the key here is that Verizon told the customer that they would be able to fix it without sending a tech out. Then somebody comes out unannounced to fix the problem? He had every right to have his guard up.
Re:More to the Story? (Score:1, Insightful)
It could matter plenty. Does it bother you at all how ridiculously one sided this story is? It makes no sense. People don't just attack random strangers, there is always a reason. Even if it doesn't change the outcome of the sentencing, I am still curious to know what could have provoked that sort of behavior.
Re:More to the Story? (Score:3, Insightful)
Disagree. If you have enough stress in your life, having someone be an asshole to you could make you snap and beat the shit out of them.
In a nutshell, the cause of this guys rage may have absolutely nothing to do with the customer.
Re:More to the Story? (Score:1, Insightful)
assault is verbal, battery is physical, and no the tech did not deserve to be "assaulted" by an obnoxious or belligerent client. No, the client is not always right. and yes hitting people is dumb, even if they deserve it.
People don't just attack random strangers(?) (Score:4, Insightful)
"People don't just attack random strangers, there is always a reason."
You're kidding, right? Have you ever worked a job that dealt with the public? Have you ever walked down the street in a major city? Have you ever visited a bar? I've seen plenty of one-sided situations and I suspect a lot of people on Slashdot have also.
Re:This tech still has a job with Verizon (Score:5, Insightful)
Well its a bad situation. The guy should have been fired for committing assault on the customer. More to the point though is this is a cry for money when verizon is not the person who snapped. He should be going after the tech guy for any damages.
Bullshit. Verizon not only didn't do a background check and hired this guy and sent him to the customer's home (when it turns out they didn't need to even send him in the first place); when the guy beats the crap out of the customer they don't apologize -- in fact they call him "blameless" -- and they don't even fire the guy, practically guaranteeing this will happen again.
Re:More to the Story? (Score:2, Insightful)
By that logic, shooting anybody in self defense could be considered premeditated. After all, you thought of it in advance and said that if your life was in danger, you would respond with lethal force.
Re:More to the Story? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Respondiat Superior? (Score:3, Insightful)
He represents that company. As such the company has a certian degree of respopnsibility.
I wonder if Verizon protects there employees from liability?
Re:More to the Story? (Score:5, Insightful)
What seems to have happened here is that a somewhat hot-headed tech who was already having a bad day went out to a house, just trying to do his job, and had some smartass give him all sorts of attitude for no reason and get in the way of him trying to get his job done.
Nope. Much as I've wanted to punch certain customers when I worked tech support, there's no way this is the victim's fault. If I saw that particular crackhead look-a-like sauntering up to my door, I'd also ask to see his ID before letting him in. How much could the victim possibly have egged him on considering the tech hadn't even made it in the front door yet?
Re:More to the Story? (Score:5, Insightful)
People don't just attack random strangers, there is always a reason.
You're right. I mean, sometimes the reason is that they were drunk, or they were dumb, or they were having a bad day, or the magic pixies told them to, but there's always a reason.
Very few of those reasons are ones I would consider valid.
Re:Yay, lets sue the company he works for! (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, it's sad you lost your leg, but you wouldn't have made ten million in ten life times
No one is claiming you would have earned that much.. they are claiming that there are going to be ongoing expenses related to the loss of the leg (crutches, maintenance of artificial leg, installing a wheel chair ramp, etc.) and of course you're quality of life is now diminished because you may not be able to enjoy things you used to be able to, etc. And this is only if the hosipital made a mistake it shouldn't have.
Verizon tech? I don't believe Verizon company policy involves punching customers. Why is Verizon paying for a stupid employee's action?
Because it hired a nutjob and sent that nutjob to a customers home? Ya, its their job to NOT hire nutjobs.
Guess what, your cell phone bill isn't going to go down thanks to this lawsuit.
No, but hopefully it will cause VZ to be much more careful about the people it sends to my house. BTW, nobody gets a tech sent to their house for a CELL phone. This is either a land line or DSL.
This isn't about justice, it's about getting cash. Twits like this cost us hundreds of dollars a year in medical costs, repair bills, etc. Guess what -- your appliance tech gets to pay for insurance for in case a customer sues his pants off. A doctor gets to pay literally tens of thousands for insurance per year. Yeah, this guy got his face smashed, but now the rest of us will be paying for it. So, let me tip my hat and say: I hope your ****ing nose is crooked for the rest of your life, greedy twit.
Ya you know what, if it means VZ is more careful about who they hire, I think that's a good thing and I'm willing to pay the $0.0001 for it.
The only people whining about suits like this are the scummy doctors and shit companies being held to some kind of standard, and you swallowed their lies hook line and sinker.
Re:So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
But good job jumping to the conclusion the paper wanted you to jump to, all black men are thugs who just finished doing a bid.
You're an asshole for assuming this is about race. If you look at that picture and the only thing you notice about it is his skin color, then you're far more racist than the GP. Either your first reaction was "black guy! Run!" and you're defending him out of guilt, or you thought "black guy's being oppressed!" and you're defending him against some giant (nonexistent) racist conspiracy.
Yea, I cant really defend his actions, but that customer was probably the 15th straight guy who saw a black guy come to his door and ask for ID.
I'd ask for ID if I saw Eminem rolling up on my sidewalk. You're pretty much an idiot if you don't ID everyone who shows up at your door asking to come inside, whether black or white, young or old, rich or poor. That you want to paint this as a race issue says a lot more about you than it does the person you were replying to.
Re:Dude (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:More to the Story? (Score:2, Insightful)
Being a juror doesn't give you the magical ability to reinterpret the law
Actually it does much more than that. It allows you to decide whether or not the law is any good and whether you should let the person go regardless of whether or not you're convinced they broke the letter of the law, because you disagree with the law.
It's known as jury nullification and is the single most important reason we even have trial by jury.
That said, apart from that mistake, I don't disagree with your position.
Re:More to the Story? (Score:5, Insightful)
The effectiveness of guns, like that of any means of self-defense, is highly situationally specific. I guarantee you this guy had a self-defense tool that's that's part of every New York apartment -- the chain lock -- that, if used, could've prevented this from happening, just as surely as a gun could've. But few people use chain locks before opening their doors. Just the same, your gun would've done you no good if it were in the bedroom closet while the guy was wailing on you. Unless you were hoping to escape from him, then run to your bedroom, get the gun, load it, and manage to shoot the guy before he's on top of you again.
Or do you load a couple rounds and have your gun in hand every time the doorbell rings? Really? Do you leave your gun with bullets in it, lying around where your toddler can grab it readily? Of course you don't, but then there goes its self-defense effectiveness.
And if you wear your gun when you answer the door, and the guy on the other side means you harm, you'd better hope you can get the shot off before he's on you, because when he sees that gun he is not going to back down while you're conscious enough to shoot him in the back.
I don't think guns are evil. I believe everyone should know how to shoot and how to handle a firearm, and I absolutely would want a gun in an obviously threatening situation where the firearm is ready and the violence is foreseeable (say, a riot down the street, or a war zone). I just understand that guns are far less effective in realistic self-defense situations than hoplomaniacs believe.
If anything would've kept the victim safer, it'd be having a big dog. Doesn't have to be a particularly vicious breed, just faithful and over fifty pounds. I can only chuckle at what would've happened if this goon had tried to pull a stunt like this near my stepmother's Lab.
Re:Dude (Score:5, Insightful)
Our DirecTV guy pointed the dish to full signal strength by eye.
That's what you think.
Pointing a dish by eye where you start picking up the signal is not too hard if you do it often. Even an amateur only needs a compass, a level and the software which calculates the elevation and bearing for your approximate position.
Centering the dish with no tools to evaluate signal strength and no reference landmarks except the position of the sun? Buddy, you got taken by a lazy joker who figured out that you can't tell the difference.
Re:More to the Story? (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, understood.
Do you have trouble imagining that the tech's response was inappropriate?
I teach my sons: "Fight words with words, and action with action."
Re:So.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So.... (Score:1, Insightful)
No, the point is that if you're black you can get away with it. No sentence, not fired. Poor white guy would not get the same break I guarantee it.
This is not the same as saying that all black men are thugs. (your words) Anybody can lose it, skin colour is irrelevant. Skin colour is relevant to how law and employers will respond however.