The security guards and the patron were the most responsible and sober individuals in the duel. However, their lack of interference poked holes to their motivation. The security offices were a bit too aggressive to the clients. This is beside the fact that they should be aware and more used to dealing with hostile customers. The security officers are seen to have used too much force on this group. According to the evidence provided, there seems to be a hidden motive in their action (Klein, 2010).
Given that the security officers are strong and powerful, they did not have to use undue force. It would have been easier for them to eject the plaintiff without calling for attention. Moreover, the security detail was big enough to calm the patrons down without using excess force. Therefore, it can be concluded that the security personnel failed in its role. Conventionally, the security officers should have tried to negotiate with the clients before lifting them out of the restaurant. The actions of the officers were irrelevant given the prevailing condition. This is because the plaintiff had not refused to leave the room (Addison, 2007).
Evidently, there were other avenues, which could have been exploited. There is no substantial evidence to prove that these customers deserved the treatment they received (Titia & Paulo, 2009). Therefore, the officers could have conducted themselves with more decorum. On the other hand, the patrons were too rash in dealing with the clients. The patrons should have tried to lower the tensions instead of issuing an order to kick out the plaintiff. In addition, the group, which is sent away, has been regular to the restaurant.
According to the evidence provided, it is clear that this group was frequent to this particular joint. Therefore, it was wrong to the patron to order their faithful customers to be thrown away due to a minimal misunderstanding. The most sensible thing that would have been done was to prepare a table fast enough for the group to settle in quickly. This is because that they took caused more harm than good (Addison, 2007).
Security guards who are in this case were supposed to be reporting to the daytime shift. This means that they were sober and could be relied on to offer candid and consistent evidence. Moreover, security guards are supposed to protect clients in the restaurant from any harm. Therefore, they could not abuse the very reason for their employment. It is apparent that the security guards had not had a similar case in the hotel premises. As a result, it would be unfair to incriminate them for an isolated case (Klein, 2010). Moreover, the security guards were supposed to work all day. The disturbance caused by the clients may have made it hard for the security guards to function properly during the day. An accusation on discrimination was a grave indictment and the judge had to exonerate them. Therefore, the security officers’ nature of work must have informed the entire trial process as well as the ruling (Titia & Paulo, 2009).
The judges considered several trials and decisions that had been arrived at in the past on the same matter. There was also intense scrutiny of witnesses and evidence, which was provided by the witnesses. According to the ruling, all the evidence presented in court was given due respect and hearing. The plaintiff had enough time and opportunity to present their evidence. The ruling was arrived at after all matters were considered including evidence from all the witnesses (Klein, 2010).
Therefore, the hearing can be seen to have been beyond reproach. In addition, the judge was prudent to reprimand the hotel management where it was deemed necessary. It will be noticed that the evidence, which was presented by the plaintiff, was not sufficient. Therefore, the judge could not make a controversial ruling in sheer disregard of the due process of the law. The law stipulates that the prosecution must prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. The reasons given in this case could not sustain a case. This is because the plaintiff presented speculations other than evidence (Titia & Paulo, 2009).
This case has heavily relied on previous lawsuits. The decisions made in the quoted suits have been instrumental in this particular case. In law, borrowing a lead from previous ruling is advisable and recommended. Most cases in the country are judged and determined in retrospect to older cases. Therefore, this case can be used in the ruling of other cases in future. The evidence provided is vital and likely to be invoked in future. Therefore, reference to this particular case will be made in future to some extent. Discrimination is still a matter of state concern (Addison, 2007). Many people are known to hide behind the cloud of discrimination in order to cause havoc as well as extort money from unsuspecting persons. Therefore, this case will be a strong backbone to suits, which are fabricated and baseless. The ruling will also help judges to make uncompromised decisions. This is because cases on discrimination of any nature are emotive and likely to spark controversy in the public spheres (Addison, 2007)
Addison, N. (2007). Religious Discrimination and Hatred Law. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Klein, R. (2010, May 14). United States Lawsuits. Retrieved Jan 23, 2014, from Rullings On
Discrimination in the Current World: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/25/politics/scotus-
Titia, L., & Paulo, R. (2009). Non-Discrimination Law: Comparative Perspectives. Mary Land:
Martinus Nijhof Publishers.