Watch: Roscoe’s Chicken N Waffles) Loses $1.6M Racial Discrimination Lawsuit (Filed By Black Man!)


*Whoa! Hold the presses! Stop the noise! Talk about a MAJOR switch-a-roo!

One of the most well-known African American-owned chains (Roscoe’s House of Chicken N Waffles) was sued for racial discrimination.

…and the $1.6 million lawsuit was filed (and won) by a black man.

CBS Los Angeles reports that Daniel Beasley, an African American ex-employee of Roscoe’s, has been awarded more than $1 million based on his claims that the chain unlawfully terminated him after he complained to human resources about being treated badly by restaurant managers because he is black.

He says in his lawsuit that the Latino employees receive preferential treatment, and points out better work schedules as one of the perks.

Beasley told reporters that Roscoe’s, which has seven stores in southern, California, has an “…African American owner, but he gives full authority to the Hispanics to run it.”

But in spite of his claims to HR, no moves to better the situation were made. And soon after, Beasley was let go from his job, and subsequently, became homeless.

“It just caught me by surprise because here I am getting fired when I’m trying to fix the problem.”

Daniel Beasley
Daniel Beasley

Beasley and his attorney, Scott Cummings, wants this win to open some eyes and send a message to other businesses out there that no matter how you spin it, it’s still racism.

Beasley states, “You can’t treat people like that and get away with it constantly.”

His attorney chimes in, “Racism, racial harassment, can occur really anywhere. Even in a black-owned business,” said Cummings.

Roscoe’s Chicken N Waffles is owned by extremely private, multi-millionaire, Herb Hudson.

Watch this report from CBS Los Angeles:

7 thoughts on “Watch: Roscoe’s Chicken N Waffles) Loses $1.6M Racial Discrimination Lawsuit (Filed By Black Man!)”

  1. When I moved back to LA in 2010 after living in ATL for 6 years, the first thing I did was go to Roscoe’s. I did a double take when I saw the wait and kitchen staff was predominately Latino. There were maybe about 5-6 Black folk working that Sunday morning. And on Sunday mornings at Roscoe’s, it is fully staffed for the Sunday crowd. I thought to myself “Isn’t this a soul food joint? What happen to the Black employees?” So I am not surprised about this lawsuit. Good for Daniel Beasley. It’s sad that it had to come to this, but good for him. Also, another thing that happens in LA that pushes out Black folk (and even why-t’s) is job descriptions that indicate “bi-lingual preferred”. Talk about blatant discrimination!

  2. Wow that’s awful…so who really owns Roscoe’s. But they have Chinese people running soul restaurants n Baltimore…when did they did no what we like? What they did was hired black folks to cook it n then learn how to make it then fired them later.

  3. …and more lawsuits will be coming! This kind of treatment or take over can not be tolerated! Latinos you are not in control, as much as you want to believe. We have for fought for fairness together, and now you turn your backs. YOU WILL COST THIS COUNTRY DEARLY! Not all blacks are asleep.

  4. I have made it a point in light of this lawsuit to do some snooping and visit all the Roscoes restaurants and I have discovered, yes even after this lawsuit that there is definitely an apparent racial divide, especially in the Pico location where this man was terminated. I am happy that he was able to prove what has proven to be very difficult cases to win (racial discrimination). It looks like his evidence was overwhelming and the jury awarded him appropriately based on that evidence. Even though Roscoes has a right to appeal to a higher court it looks like they only risk delving out more money to Beasley in interest and attorney fees. Looks like they should pay the judgement and move on, hopefully to improve the standards and work environment for their employees moving forward and view this as a lesson and wake up call as to what’s the right thing to do in the work place.

  5. Roscoes Loses $3.2 Million Dollars in Lawsuit
    Latest Updates in this case: 2016

    I have interviewed managers, employees and individuals directly involved in this case and I also read pages of transcripts upon transcripts and these are some of the most important facts pertaining to this case.

    I have read a lot of comments all over the web about this story and there are so many facts that people don’t know and those individuals sound very ignorant because they are so, un-informed (the record is public, anyone can get the facts). I am Not speaking of the racial, bigot type comments because these people have a totally different perspective which has nothing to do with the merits of this case at all and I won’t waist your or my valuable time dealing with their rhetoric.

    First of all, Roscoes was found guilty on “ALL THIRTEEN COUNTS” brought against them by the plaintiff, Daniel Beasley, from a twelve member Jury of their peers which they selected during the “Voir Dire” process. In a civil case they did not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Plaintiff made false accusations and should not win but by the PREPONDERANCE of the “EVIDENCE”. In other words; The defendant, Herb Hudson, dba; Roscoes House of Chicken ‘N Waffles, ONLY had to present the “EVIDENCE” which proved that (t)HE(y) did not discriminate racially, sexually harass, wrongfully terminate, retaliate or not take every measure to prevent such acts from taking place in his business.

    Let’s take a look at the thirteen counts which Roscoes could not refute in court::

    1. Did Daniel Beasley complain of Racial Discrimination, Race Harassment or Sexual Harassment?

    Poll and Answer: 12 – Yes | 0 – No

    2. Were Daniel Beasley’s complaints a substantial motivating reason for Roscoe’s adverse action against him?

    Poll and Answer: 12 – Yes | 0 – No

    3. Was Roscoe’s conduct a substantial factor in causing harm to Daniel Beasley?

    Poll and Answer: 10 – Yes | 2 – No

    4. Was Daniel Beasley’s race a substantial motivating reason for Roscoe’s adverse action against him?

    Poll and Answer: 9 – Yes | 3 – No

    5. Was Roscoe’s conduct a substantial factor in causing harm to Daniel Beasley?

    Poll and Answer: 9 – Yes | 3 – No

    6. Was Daniel Beasley subjected to unwanted harassment conduct, either directly and/or indirectly because
    of race, sex or both?

    Poll and Answer: 12 – Yes | 0 – No

    7. Was the harassing conduct a substantial factor in causing harm to Daniel Beasley?

    Poll and Answer: 12 – Yes | 0 – No

    8. Were Adrianna Terrones and/or Lisa Hernandez unfit to perform the work for which they were hired?

    Poll and Answer: 12 – Yes | 0 – No

    9. Did Roscoes know or should they have known that Adrianna Terrones and/or Lisa Hernandez were unfit and that
    this unfitness created a particular risk to others?

    Poll and Answer: 12 – Yes | 0 – No

    10. Was Roscoes retaining of Adrianna Terrones or Lisa Hernandez a substantial factor in causing harm to Daniel Beasley?

    Poll and Answer: 12 – Yes | 0 – No

    11. Did Roscoes fail to take all reasonable steps to prevent the harassment, discrimination or retaliation?

    Poll and Answer: 12 – Yes | 0 – No

    12. Was Roscoe’s failure to take reasonable steps to prevent harassment, discrimination and/or retaliation a substantial factor in causing Daniel Beasley’s harm?

    Poll and Answer: 12 – Yes | 0 – No

    13. Did an officer, director and/or managing agent of Roscoes engage in malice, oppression and/or fraud, either through his or hers own actions or by authorizing and/or ratifying other’s actions?

    Poll and Answer: 12 – Yes | 0 – No

    Now any of you out there familiar with how court procedure and protocol works when it comes to due process, discovery and in this example Jury Polls. One side isn’t favored or get the advantage or opportunity to write or present the polls in their favor. Both sides MUST AGREE to the questioning and format of the Poll presented to the Jury. This fair Poll was presented by Plaintiff and Defendant Counsels in hopes that, that which they agreed upon was the right content according to the EVIDENCE to sway the Jury in their favor.

    NOTE: Daniel was then awarded $3.2 Million dollars, including attorney and court fees, not just $1.6 Million.

    $1.5 million dollars of the award was non-economic loss, which is untamable.
    $130,000.00 dollars was past and future lost earnings which is taxable
    $31,800.00 dollars was past and future medical expenses
    Over $1.5 million for attorney fees and court cost

    Herb Hudson filed/petitioned for a new trial in November of 2015 and loss that in court on Dec. 7, 2015.

    Herb Hudson fought against attorney fees and cost in January of 2016 and lost that in court on Feb. 5, 2016

    Herb Hudson filed for an appeal in Dec. 2015. With Interest, Attorney fees and court cost, by May 2017 this appeal will cost Herb Hudson and Roscoes House of Chicken ‘N Waffles another $950,000.00 dollars, bringing this landmark case to a stunning $4.2 million dollar judgement against the famous food chain.

    In all my legal experience this case was won on solid EVIDENCE against Roscoes House of Chicken ‘N Waffles and based on the strong EVIDENCE against them; A Jury has decided, a judge adjudicated the re-trial petition and attorney fees and has decided that there was no unfair, illegal or prejudice of the court towards Herb Hudson/ Roscoes House of Chicken ‘N Waffles and both sided with and awarded the Plaintiff fairly according to the law

    Trust me people, Herb Hudson is a billionaire and can afford and has hired good legal representation. If you read the facts of the case you will find that Herb Hudson was represented by three different law firms, which two firms thought he could not win and did not agree with him pursuing the case. The law firm he later retained for the trial was also co-counsel with another attorney who was Herb Hudson’s close friend, plus he filled the courtroom everyday with experts, employees and investigators to gain added angles to win his case in court. With all his resources and strategies… It was still not enough to win against the plaintiff for the charges levied against him and his very successful Restaurants; dba; Roscoes House of Chicken ‘N Waffles, which are now seven locations, including his newest one in Anaheim, just blocks away from Disneyland. All of these Restaurants bring in Millions of Dollars a year and was built on the support of loyal African American patrons which later grew into an international constituency.

    Remember people the laws are very clear to protect employees and business owners. This notion that many people believe and write in many Blogs around the world, that this guy was lazy, looking for an easy paycheck or didn’t deserve the verdict is so ignorant and confirms that those individuals haven’t read the facts of the case and are only gossiping, perhaps out of jealousy for this man standing up and having the courage to speak out against what I’ve found to be a long lasting problem and practice within Roscoes.

    Today it appears by my conversations with staff and management of Roscoes House of Chicken ‘N Waffles that there has been considerable changes as a result of this lawsuit and many of the African American employees pay a lot of gratitude to Daniel Beasley for his courage which has caused them to experience better work conditions. Roscoes has brought in new leadership, Herb Hudson’s daughter, known by the staff as Ms. Allicyn. She has already made sweeping changes and vows to make Roscoes a safer, fair and legal environment for employees of all races to work.

    So readers let’s do a little fact checking before you start spewing off rhetoric about someone that is false and mis-leading, you will become more credible. I hope this comment of some of the facts has helped some of you with a clearer understanding of this case. It has definitely helped me and drove me to share with you my findings in this case that involved an institution that most of us adore.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *