Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Serious question: why would someone specify "no peanuts" in a smoothie UNLESS the drink was for someone with allergies? I mean would someone walk in and say "Kale and spinach smoothie, no peanuts" just because they don't like peanuts? Would the store print that request on the receipt as happened here? And if there is some other reason to specify no specific ingredient, should the server ASK if there is an allergy?
I agree that the dad acted badly. But I do not think he should have lost his job. I DO think the kids should lose their jobs. Why the difference? The dad's bad behavior wasn't related to his job at all. If people want to chose another fin adviser they can, but the rate of return his customers get from their investments is not affected by what he did. Nobody can sue Merrill Lynch based on what the dad did. ML is firing him due to the bad publicity.
The kids' mistakes were related to their jobs. There is no question that there was a 911 call from the dad's home about 45 minutes after he bought the smoothie. If the son died, the smoothie store would be facing a wrongful death action. As it is, the son probably has a case for negligence against it.
The fact that the kids' attitude was so cavalier indicates that they had not received sufficient training from their employer about food allergies. That is negligence.
Yes. All the time.
Absolutely. I don't like the taste of something, I just ask for it to be removed or subbed. Including types of nuts.
That smoothie shop btw has 3 smoothies with peanut butter. All of which use it as the base.
Judging by the fact that he ordered it for a 17-year-old teen boy, who love to 'bulk', I'm guessing it was the 800 LB Gorilla. The second ingredient (which means the second most plentiful) is peanut butter. Kid had a death wish.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The dude has apparently been arrested. His life is over. Moron.
25 year successful career with ML, spotless record.....what a complete dumbass, moron.
He’s a bozo who must be lying about being 48
I dunno - he looks like a typical worn out 48 year old to me.
Doesn't look a day younger than 56.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The dude has apparently been arrested. His life is over. Moron.
25 year successful career with ML, spotless record.....what a complete dumbass, moron.
He’s a bozo who must be lying about being 48
I dunno - he looks like a typical worn out 48 year old to me.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The dude has apparently been arrested. His life is over. Moron.
25 year successful career with ML, spotless record.....what a complete dumbass, moron.
He’s a bozo who must be lying about being 48
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The dude has apparently been arrested. His life is over. Moron.
25 year successful career with ML, spotless record.....what a complete dumbass, moron.
Anonymous wrote:The dude has apparently been arrested. His life is over. Moron.
Anonymous wrote:Not excusing his behavior but he does not deserve to be fired for this. Search smoothie on You tube and the videos call him Karen. He did not act like the Karen from the park who called cops on the bird watcher guy because he was black. This guy became unhinged for a valid reason. And even after throwing the drink he says he will leave if they give the number and they refuse. He is not obnoxious after that towards the end of the video.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Serious question: why would someone specify "no peanuts" in a smoothie UNLESS the drink was for someone with allergies? I mean would someone walk in and say "Kale and spinach smoothie, no peanuts" just because they don't like peanuts? Would the store print that request on the receipt as happened here? And if there is some other reason to specify no specific ingredient, should the server ASK if there is an allergy?
I agree that the dad acted badly. But I do not think he should have lost his job. I DO think the kids should lose their jobs. Why the difference? The dad's bad behavior wasn't related to his job at all. If people want to chose another fin adviser they can, but the rate of return his customers get from their investments is not affected by what he did. Nobody can sue Merrill Lynch based on what the dad did. ML is firing him due to the bad publicity.
The kids' mistakes were related to their jobs. There is no question that there was a 911 call from the dad's home about 45 minutes after he bought the smoothie. If the son died, the smoothie store would be facing a wrongful death action. As it is, the son probably has a case for negligence against it.
The fact that the kids' attitude was so cavalier indicates that they had not received sufficient training from their employer about food allergies. That is negligence.
Yes. All the time.

Anonymous wrote:Serious question: why would someone specify "no peanuts" in a smoothie UNLESS the drink was for someone with allergies? I mean would someone walk in and say "Kale and spinach smoothie, no peanuts" just because they don't like peanuts? Would the store print that request on the receipt as happened here? And if there is some other reason to specify no specific ingredient, should the server ASK if there is an allergy?
I agree that the dad acted badly. But I do not think he should have lost his job. I DO think the kids should lose their jobs. Why the difference? The dad's bad behavior wasn't related to his job at all. If people want to chose another fin adviser they can, but the rate of return his customers get from their investments is not affected by what he did. Nobody can sue Merrill Lynch based on what the dad did. ML is firing him due to the bad publicity.
The kids' mistakes were related to their jobs. There is no question that there was a 911 call from the dad's home about 45 minutes after he bought the smoothie. If the son died, the smoothie store would be facing a wrongful death action. As it is, the son probably has a case for negligence against it.
The fact that the kids' attitude was so cavalier indicates that they had not received sufficient training from their employer about food allergies. That is negligence.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:He said no peanut butter
He check receipt no peanut butter
His son went into shock transported to hospital
He yelled at the staff for almost killing son.
He was fired his job.
He was publicly lunched
White girls posted this to get clicks and ruin the guys life.
Meanwhile it should have been dealt with via police or perhaps lawsuit.
Funny the actually folks he yelled at did not post it
No. He ruined his own life with his behavior. If he hadn’t thrown a racist adult temper tantrum in public, there would have been nothing to post.
Next!
Anonymous wrote:He said no peanut butter
He check receipt no peanut butter
His son went into shock transported to hospital
He yelled at the staff for almost killing son.
He was fired his job.
He was publicly lunched
White girls posted this to get clicks and ruin the guys life.
Meanwhile it should have been dealt with via police or perhaps lawsuit.
Funny the actually folks he yelled at did not post it