Print the value of index0
Annabel's Restaurant and Annabel Stolley Discrimination Cincinnati Ohio
The following outrageous incident occurred today at Annabel's, at about 10:30 a.m. We were three adults (my sister, her husband and me) and their two children (an 11-year-old and 8-year-old). Today was our last opportunity to be together following the funeral yesterday for my dad (he died two days ago; we all flew in from various parts of the country). We asked if we three adults could be seated at the available, set table for four (a "four-top") and if the girls could sit at the two-top next to it. We said that our other brother would be joining us and that he would be the fourth at our four-top. We also said it was not necessary at all to try to time all of our orders to arrive at the same time. Our ability to be together was paramount after an extremely trying day yesterday. The waitress seemed relieved to know that we were fine about the food not being served to us all at once, but she told us that it is Annabel's policy not to accommodate parties of six. My brother-in-law politely explained the extraordinary circumstances of all of us coming in from out of town for our dad's funeral and that this was our last get-together before their flight in a couple of hours. The waitress indicated she understood and kindly seated us. It was an entirely friendly interaction. We three then sat at the table for four, and the two girls sat at the table for two. We had been sitting and chatting for about five minutes when Annabel walked up to us three and, in an entirely friendly and quiet way, told us that she could not serve us because if she did, then other people would expect to be able to come in in groups of six and be served. She said she just could not accommodate us. My sister, next to me, became tearful and quietly asked if she could please make an exception as we were all together for the last time in Cincinnati. Annabel refused and, quietly but firmly, insisted that we all get up and leave.
I have thought a lot about the above incident, which occurred today. I am sure nothing like this will ever happen again in my life (or my family's lives), as it is so bizarre. As I reflect on it, the actions of this restaurant owner strike me as crossing a line into unlawfulness. The restaurant's agent, whom we had every reason to believe was authorized to accept patrons, invited us to be seated. We accepted, and sat down. We in fact were not "a party of six." We were a party of three, soon to be four, sitting at the restaurant's four-top and a party of two, sitting at the restaurant's separate two-top. We did not move, or even ask to move, the two separate tables together. Moreover, a valid legal issue is whether the two individuals sitting at the two-top were even a "party of two" given that they were children (my 11- and 8-year-old nieces). As a matter of law, those two girls were charges of the adults, who constituted a party of three (soon to be four).
The actions of the owner, Annabel, later approaching our table -- after we had been seated for several minutes pursuant to her employee/agent's invitation -- and informing us that we all had to leave was (a) a breach of contract, (b) unlawful discrimination based on familial status or indefensible prejudice, (c) an infliction of emotional distress, intentionally and maliciously. No legitimate reason existed for this owner's unconscionable actions. People were not waiting for tables. The restaurant had at least one other free table in addition to the two-top and four-top where we had been invited to sit down. It was late morning on a weekday.
Accordingly, as an attorney, I reserve all rights in relation to the restaurant from which we were evicted today for clearly unlawful discriminatory reasons.
This is an absolutely amazing story of heartlessness and stupidity and hubris on the part of a restaurant owner. Where is this woman's humanity?
12 Updates & Rebuttals
Trent W
Cincinnati,Ohio,
Sad Circumstance part II
#13General Comment
Mon, June 17, 2013
Looks like you're all still at it. Wonderful. Testy lawyers versus heartless business owners. I'm still coming down on the family's side. "What would happen" if you allowed one family to break your arbitrary and pointless rule? I'm sure the floodgates would open and parties of six would rain down on your sh*thole restaurant like fire and brimstone. Discrimination, shopkeep rules, breach of contract? Who gives a rat's a**. Heartless move. You kicked a grieving family out of your restaurant in the name of a rule. Oh, I get it you were just following orders. Heil Annabell.
Anonymous
New York,New York,
Annabel's Was Appalling and Should Apologize to Family
#13Consumer Comment
Mon, June 17, 2013
Robert
Irvine,California,
For Anonymous
#13Consumer Comment
Sat, June 15, 2013
Nice try...but it is obvious that you know the Original Poster(or perhaps you are them).
At about 10:30 on Friday, June 7th
No where in this post did anyone mention a specific date. In fact the report was posted on June 8th, and the OP stated the event occured "today". So the only way you would know the exact date is if you have direct knowlege of the events in question.
But even if you aren't the original poster..there is only one side of the story. How do you know that no chairs or tables were moved? How do you know that they didn't cause a disturbance? How do you even know that there were open tables? After the OP went from having the kids at the table next to them..to one "near" them.
You are also taking the assumption that the waitress had the "authority" to override the policy. Perhaps she didn't understand all of the ramifications of allowing a party of 6. After all because of one mistake by a waitress..what happens the next time a party of 6 comes in because they heard that they made an exception? What if they are told NO, and to add another wrinkle say they are a minority and decide to claim true discrimination(not this family size B.S. the OP is trying to pull)...all because of one mistake one waitress who didn't fully understand the policy. So the OWNER who has the authority to make this decision did exactly what they needed to do.
Of course you still can't get by the fact that the entire purpose for this Breakfast was so that EVERYONE could be together for one last time. Yet they still went to a place they had prior knowlege of the seating policy AND were so willing to let the two greaving kids sit off by themselves. I'm sorry but I don't care if the place is the hotest 5-Star place in town giving away free food. If the reason(as the OP stated) is to be together, I am not going to go to a place where we might be separated. I definatly would not go there in the hopes that we could talk our way into having them make an exception.
So sympathy for your loss..Yes of course. But sympathy for the situation you found yourself in by your actions already knowing the policy..No.
Anonymous
New York,New York,
A Disinvitation Is Wrong If Policy Is Waived
#13Consumer Comment
Fri, June 14, 2013
The right of a restaurant to refuse service when it is open for business during its usual hours of operation is not unlimited. If a restaurant has, for example, a "no flip-flops" policy and people arrive wearing flip-flops, the restaurant may turn them away. What happens, though, if the restaurant decides to permit an exception and invites them in and seats them? Here is the issue: Does the restaurant have the right to later disinvite them solely for wearing flip-flops? I would say "no." Didn't the restaurant give up its right to refuse service for that reason alone? I would say "yes."
Annabel's totally disagrees. At about 10:30 on Friday, June 7th, this party arrived at Annabel's and was told it exceeded Annabel's seating limit. The party had a conversation based on which Annabel's decided to forgo its apparent seating policy, and invited the party in and seated them. Several minutes after being seated, Annabel's decided to demand that the party leave, even though it had neither disturbed any of the patrons or altered the position of any tables or chairs. No one was waiting for a table. It was late morning on a weekday.
The party then re-explained their personal circumstances (they were family from other states who'd come to Cincinnati for a family member's funeral the day before). Even though no new fact or anything at all occurred after Annabel's invited in this party of six people, Annabel's nonetheless later disinvited them, forcing them out of their seats, the sole offered explanation being: "If we do this for you, we have to do this for everybody."
I knew someone well who represented the Hotel and Restaurant Employees' Union, and those workers were called "hospitality workers" and their business, the "hospitality business." What happened to the notion of "hospitality" at Annabel's in Cincinnati? How is this not arbitrary and indefensible conduct that warrants a serious rebuke?
Striderq
Columbia,South Carolina,
For Trent W
#13General Comment
Mon, June 10, 2013
Wrong on most if not all claims. The people responding are not employed by Annabel's, just as we are not employed by any of the other places responders have claimed we are. We're not defending this place so much as trying to share common sense and logic to the report. And a family of 5 is welcome a Annabel's, it's parties of 6 or more that aren't accepted.
Trent W
Cincinnati,Ohio,
Sad Circumstance
#13General Comment
Sun, June 09, 2013
Wow, looks like Annabel's corporate office got their pretend lawyers (employees) out in full force to rebut this complaint. I am sorry for your loss and the way you all were treated. These heartless losers are falling all over themselves to defend their arbitrary and unbreakable seating policy. And as for familial discrimination, seems funny that a family of four can sit but a family of 5 or more can go to h*ll. Gee i wonder who they are trying to keep out with that rule? Sounds like discrimination to me. By the way I have eaten at this dump before and let me tell you... it is gross, dirty and overpriced.
Robert
Irvine,California,
Really?
#13Consumer Comment
Sun, June 09, 2013
There is something a bit odd about this report. Perhaps it could be chaulked up to you being upset about your fathers passing, and if so then I am sorry about your loss..but you are still as others have said being a total A** about it. But there are quite a few inconsistancies and things that just don't make sense that could make one wonder if this really happened.
First off you go into this place apparently already knowing the seating policy. You then continue to try and get them to make an exception, at which time it looks like the waitress finally did. But that still does not mean that they must serve you, they could still ask you to leave because it is private property.
But you are also trying to claim that you were not a party of 6 but a party of 2 and a party of 4. Even as a lawyer you should know that is not a logical claim to say that the two kids were not part of your party. But it goes farther. In your original report you stated that they were seated at the table right next to yours. In your update they magically moved to the opposite corner that was "nearby". Which is it?
You are also trying to claim some "familial status" discrimination. Well as a laywer I defy you to find one piece of law that makes the number of people in a group/family a "protected class".
Then we have the date issue. The original report was posted on a SATURDAY from the events that happened that day, yet you claimed this happened on a WEEKDAY. Again..which is it?
By the way since one person in your party apparently knew of the policy in advance why didn't you go to the many other places you could have gone if in fact the main goal was to be together one last time? Why if your main goal was for everyone to be together..was your group so open to separating out the two kids? Which arguably could be seen as the ones who may need the most support.
Anyways..what ever your motives were thanks for the post if I am ever in Cinci I will definatly have to give this place a try.
Jeanski
Dayton,Ohio,
comment
#13Consumer Comment
Sun, June 09, 2013
To the OP: You’re being an a*s and perhaps your grief over your father’s death has you a little confused. (BTW – I am sorry for your loss)
Sure, this wasn’t very nice of the restaurant owner, but at least she was polite about it. It also seems like a weird policy. But she has the right to enforce it.
You should have paid more attention in your constitutional law class. There is no such thing as “familial discrimination” in this context.
Lastly, you argue both sides (typical lawyer) and it’s illogical. To wit:
“We in fact were not "a party of six." We were a party of three, soon to be four, sitting at the restaurant's four-top and a party of two, sitting at the restaurant's separate two-top... Moreover, a valid legal issue is whether the two individuals sitting at the two-top were even a "party of two" given that they were children (my 11- and 8-year-old nieces). As a matter of law, those two girls were charges of the adults, who constituted a party of three (soon to be four).
I think any reasonable person would see you as a party of six since it’s unlikely two children would be there unsupervised.
Let us know what happens.
Striderq
Columbia,South Carolina,
A few items...
#13General Comment
Sun, June 09, 2013
1) Make up your mind. You try to claim the kids were a separate party but then say they were charges of the adult. The facts are 5 people went in together and with 1 more expected t join makes 6. Doesn't matter on ages, matters how many total.
2) As your sister had been there before she should have known this restriction as it's probably posted on the wall or in the menu.
3) If your sister explained in such a quiet voice as you described, how did theother customers hear to show their sympathy on your way out?
4) Very interesting that in you first post your describe Annabel as "quiet and firm". But in your second post she has become "intemperate and vitriolic".
5) Discrimination can only be claimed if you & your party are members of one of the protected groups and the transaction was based on that trait. You were refused because your party was too large, sorry no discrimination.
6) Remember what they say about someone, especially a lawyer, who defends himself in court...they have a fool for a client. Over all as my grandkids would say "suck it up buttercup". I'm soory for your loss but you're trying to make this out to be way more than it was.
srb
Cincinnati,Ohio,
Insensitive owner
#13General Comment
Sun, June 09, 2013
What happened to Ms. Stolley's response, which is referred to in the original complaint? It seems to have vanished. I wonder why? This incident is shocking and outrageous. I know the customers involved, and cannot believe they were refused service. Forcing a bereaved family to leave the premises is curiously insensitive and inhospitable, petty behaviour certainly not to be expected from the chef/owner of a neighborhood restaurant. To the author of the "consumer comment" posted above, I find your use of profanity and general tone offensive and in breach of "Rip-off Report" rebuttal rules. Are you a friend of the owner?
Dhf
Ft Lauderdale,Florida,
Dear Ms. Stolley:
#13Author of original report
Sat, June 08, 2013
The facts of this matter are simple and straightforward.
We were three adults and two children. My brother was on his way.The woman who greeted us seated the two kids at a table for two,
and us at a four-top, in the rear right corner. She let us know Annabel's policy that parties of six or more are not seated. We explained our unique
circumstances and said that we would not need food orders delivered all at once, whereupon she invited us to sit down at those two tables. It was
about 10:30 a.m. One other two-top was available in an opposite corner, and diners occupied the remaining tables. Our presence did not dislodge or
at all affect any other diner. We did not ask the restaurant to put our tables together or ever try to move them closer together. The girls sat quietly at
their table for two and we three chatted at our nearby table.
As we are not employees of Annabel's, we had every reason to believe that the person who greeted us and waived Annabel's usual seating
policy, and in fact welcomed us, had the authority to do so.
About five minutes after we were seated, owner Annabel Stolley walked over and calmly but clearly told us that all of us would have to leave because
in her view, we were a party of six and if she seated us, "then I would have to accommodate everybody else in this way." Our
mouths were agape and my sister next to me became tearful. The circumstances that we had explained to Annabel's colleague who
had seated us were now re-told to Annabel, by my teary sister (a middle-aged, educated, kind woman). "Could you please, please
just make an exception," my sister pleaded quietly, her voice quavering. "We are all here from out of town for our father's funeral
yesterday and this is our last chance to be together before we leave and we don't know where we can, right now, find a place to be
together. We love your restaurant. We came here a few times when we visited our dad in hospice a few weeks ago. Can you please
make this one exception?"
Annabel, with an utterly chilling faint smile, repeated that she could not help us and that we would have to leave. We, a bereaved
family, complied; upon our leaving, a few customers sympathized with my sister and conveyed their own astonishment.
Ms. Stolley's intemperate and vitriolic response to my initial complaint reflects exactly who she is. How such a person can make a living in
the hospitality business is truly remarkable.
I am in fact an attorney and as such I appreciate the admissions Ms. Stolley made in her written response. They lend support to my
true account of what transpired and I trust Ms. Stolley will choose to settle the matter with me, either on her own or through her
attorney, in due course. You may anticipate hearing from me shortly through traditional means of communication. I look forward
to resolving the matter amicably without resort to litigation.
Tyg
Pahrump,Nevada,
If your statement is correct
#13General Comment
Sat, June 08, 2013
If your statement is correct and you yourself are an attorney then you know that ALL businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. As you said, the hostess was polite. She however IS NOT the owner of the company. She is paid, as well as everyone that works in that resturant, to follow company policy. You asking her to make an exception simply put her in a situation she had no control over. There is no breach of contract and you know it. EVERY state has a shop keep law that allows for ANy business to refuse service.
Instead of being such an a*s about the whole situation, why didnt you just move to a different table? It seems to me that would have been the most equitable of solutions. But let me guess, as an attorney you feel that you should get your way in everything. And because the poor hostess was doing the job that she IS contracted to do by the company she works for, you have the nerve to complain about the company? This is not a ripoff. This is you being butthurt that you didnt get your way.