Jump to content

Mike Isabella and Partners Sued for "Extraordinary'" Sexual Harrassment


Deac

Recommended Posts

Quote

In the lawsuit, Caras alleges that Isabella and his partners called her “bitch” and “whore,” commented on the size of her buttocks and touched her without permission.

I'm inclined to believe Mike did some naughty things but they are extraordinarily mild compared to what other chefs have done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dcs said:

Lawsuit accuses celebrity chef Mike Isabella of ‘extraordinary’ sexual harassment, by Danielle Paquette,  March 19, 2018, on washingtonpost.com. at 1:06 PM Email the author

Forgive me if this has been addressed in another thread, but when I read this, I was wondering if there was a connection between Jen Carroll's sudden departure and the allegations of a hostile work environment detailed in Ms. Caras' complaint.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Ericandblueboy said:

I'm inclined to believe Mike did some naughty things but they are extraordinarily mild compared to what other chefs have done.

I wonder why the severity of it matters when there is workplace harassment.. The guy sounds like such a creep.

I don't think people take the remarkable step of detailing this, keeping the texts, filing the lawsuits if it's not real. I just don't think it's worth the time and effort, because she's not going to get much out of this. Legal fees will be high, not going to much compensatory rewards, and she is going to 'blackballed' by a lot of men - even it is completely true.

Curious to see what happens, overall. And, I agree that the change to going back to being a chef - the timing is suspicious.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Simul Parikh said:

I wonder why the severity of it matters when there is workplace harassment. 

I'm mocking whoever wrote this is "extraordinary" sexual harassment.  Obviously "extraordinary" is intended to inflate the indignity of the victim thereby inflating the potential damage awarded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Simul Parikh said:

And, I agree that the change to going back to being a chef - the timing is suspicious.  

After what I read in that article, he might be going back to being a bachelor. And he's also undoubtedly feeling some pressure because he just bought an expensive condominium, with great public fanfare.

1 hour ago, Ericandblueboy said:

I'm mocking whoever wrote this is "extraordinary" sexual harassment.  Obviously "extraordinary" is intended to inflate the indignity of the victim thereby inflating the potential damage awarded.

It's true that "extraordinary" is legal rhetoric - we'll need to see what Jennifer Carroll, Marjorie Meek-Bradley, Gina Dakkouni, and various other former and current female employees say (and rest assured, they will be subpoenaed if this goes to court). If Chloe Caras knew she'd be doing this, she would have been smart to keep a journal, and tell as many of her friends as possible about the details of what went on.

One problem with lining up female-after-female is that - if you've been inside banks 2,000 times in your life, and have robbed only 3 of them, that still makes you a bank robber.

(That's a variation on my standard response to people who say, "I've eaten just as many meals as you, Rockwell!" Response: "I've slept on mattresses almost every night of my life, and I don't know the first thing about mattresses." :))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Simul Parikh said:

I wonder why the severity of it matters when there is workplace harassment.. The guy sounds like such a creep.

I don't think people take the remarkable step of detailing this, keeping the texts, filing the lawsuits if it's not real. I just don't think it's worth the time and effort, because she's not going to get much out of this. Legal fees will be high, not going to much compensatory rewards, and she is going to 'blackballed' by a lot of men - even it is completely true.

Curious to see what happens, overall. And, I agree that the change to going back to being a chef - the timing is suspicious.  

The lawyer may have taken the case on contingency, I would guess that they did in this type of case with who is involved, but generally for an attorney to take a case on contingency, you have to have a bit of evidence and a decent shot.

As an attorney all these sexual harassment claims really raise for me a big ethical question- I really don't like that people are being tried in the court of public opinion, and I have seen cases with very horrible untrue allegations against employers as a revenge for terminating them.  At the same time, I know that sexual harassment exists, it often is a very hard case to prove, and I don't want it to continue to be pervasive.  But the lawyer in me also believes that there should be a fair trial before we assume someone is guilty.  I also think there are very often two sides to every story, but that doesn't mean that one person can't be a victim.  So while I appreciate the Me too movement and think there is a lot of behavior out there that needs to change, it is hard to see things like this playing out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ktmoomau said:

The lawyer may have taken the case on contingency, I would guess that they did in this type of case with who is involved, but generally for an attorney to take a case on contingency, you have to have a bit of evidence and a decent shot.

As an attorney all these sexual harassment claims really raise for me a big ethical question- I really don't like that people are being tried in the court of public opinion, and I have seen cases with very horrible untrue allegations against employers as a revenge for terminating them.  At the same time, I know that sexual harassment exists, it often is a very hard case to prove, and I don't want it to continue to be pervasive.  But the lawyer in me also believes that there should be a fair trial before we assume someone is guilty.  I also think there are very often two sides to every story, but that doesn't mean that one person can't be a victim.  So while I appreciate the Me too movement and think there is a lot of behavior out there that needs to change, it is hard to see things like this playing out.

I agree with everything you say, but will add that if - if - that attorney taking the case on contingency ever decides it's "hinky" (as Ericandblueboy would say), he'll dump her like a hot potato. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The response to the allegations, in part:.

Quote

As with any case of former business partners and employees, there is much more to this story. Ms. Caras engaged in the very same banter, language, and horseplay that she now claims created a hostile working atmosphere. MIC has the same, if not many more, of these text messages, incidents, and write-ups of serious misconduct at work, to show that Ms. Caras’ portrayal as a victim is, again, untrue. More importantly, she is using much of the communication that occurred off-work to support her own case, all the while the many employees and women-leaders at MIC are ready to prove that none of this occurred at the restaurants, and further that Mr. Isabella’s restaurants are enjoyable places to work and dine for everyone.

I guess it doesn't count if done off-premises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ktmoomau said:

As an attorney all these sexual harassment claims really raise for me a big ethical question- I really don't like that people are being tried in the court of public opinion, and I have seen cases with very horrible untrue allegations against employers as a revenge for terminating them.  At the same time, I know that sexual harassment exists, it often is a very hard case to prove, and I don't want it to continue to be pervasive.  But the lawyer in me also believes that there should be a fair trial before we assume someone is guilty.  I also think there are very often two sides to every story, but that doesn't mean that one person can't be a victim.  So while I appreciate the Me too movement and think there is a lot of behavior out there that needs to change, it is hard to see things like this playing out.

I think that false balance is dangerous in situations like these though.  If, for example, legitimate complaints of harassment are significantly more commonplace than untrue allegations for the purpose of revenge, then the latter doesn't deserve equal time or sympathy IMO.

Also, as mentioned in another thread recently, I think viewing harassment through a purely legal lens is similarly dangerous.  There is a ton of behavior in workplaces that needs to change and doesn't necessarily rise to the legal definition of harassment, but is nonetheless quite harmful to those who have to endure such treatment.  In those situations, the court of public opinion is the only meaningful avenue of recourse.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ktmoomau said:

The lawyer may have taken the case on contingency, I would guess that they did in this type of case with who is involved, but generally for an attorney to take a case on contingency, you have to have a bit of evidence and a decent shot.

As an attorney all these sexual harassment claims really raise for me a big ethical question- I really don't like that people are being tried in the court of public opinion, and I have seen cases with very horrible untrue allegations against employers as a revenge for terminating them.  At the same time, I know that sexual harassment exists, it often is a very hard case to prove, and I don't want it to continue to be pervasive.  But the lawyer in me also believes that there should be a fair trial before we assume someone is guilty.  I also think there are very often two sides to every story, but that doesn't mean that one person can't be a victim.  So while I appreciate the Me too movement and think there is a lot of behavior out there that needs to change, it is hard to see things like this playing out.

Totally get that, and it makes it hard. And there are degrees and Eric is right - maybe many people in the industry have done far worse and this is truly not extraordinary. But sometimes during the revolution there are going to be people that are sacrificed for the greater good that aren't as bad as all the other true criminals. I'd have to say I'm okay with that :( 

I guess I lean towards generally believing this story, because there is a real lack of open support. When it's a nuisance/false claim, it seems to be that many, many people support the person being accused. There are so many restaurant workers that complain of this so frequently that it's hard to imagine when someone goes through this amount of effort that it's a false claim. 

Not quite the same, but when a doc gets sued once, you usually just think of it as a patient that is angry about an adverse outcome rather than malpractice. But, when many people sue the same doctor, you start making assumptions about their ability / skills. 

Seems in this case, many people are either supporting here, dissociating themselves from MI, or staying mum rather than voicing unwavering support... It's fair, though. I back track on saying he's a creep. I have no idea. And I actually like Graffiato.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harassment in the workplace, sexual or not, is plain flat out wrong. I do not know anything about Mike Isabella or the businesses that he's involved with, so I have no idea if these allegations are true. But I know that pretty much every woman I know has been harassed to one degree or another. And most have been harassed more than I ever realized and it is not acceptable. Calling out people who treat others in this manner is our responsibility as humans on this planet IMHO.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/20/2018 at 11:17 AM, DonRocks said:

After what I read in that article, he might be going back to being a bachelor. And he's also undoubtedly feeling some pressure because he just bought an expensive condominium, with great public fanfare.

It's true that "extraordinary" is legal rhetoric - we'll need to see what Jennifer Carroll, Marjorie Meek-Bradley, Gina Dakkouni, and various other former and current female employees say (and rest assured, they will be subpoenaed if this goes to court). If Chloe Caras knew she'd be doing this, she would have been smart to keep a journal, and tell as many of her friends as possible about the details of what went on.

One problem with lining up female-after-female is that - if you've been inside banks 2,000 times in your life, and have robbed only 3 of them, that still makes you a bank robber.

(That's a variation on my standard response to people who say, "I've eaten just as many meals as you, Rockwell!" Response: "I've slept on mattresses almost every night of my life, and I don't know the first thing about mattresses." :))

Has Jose Andres commented yet?  He gave Isabella his start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nats cut ties with Isabella.  That leaves 3 vacated stands to be filled before the home opener on April 5th.  This is where I agree with Katelin about the court of public opinion.  I get that the Nats don't want to appear to be supporting bad behavior and they certainly don't want to deal with a backlash, but this is a lawsuit that was just recently filed.

If there were some kind of credible evidence that a person or people working for the vendor locations at Nats Park had been abused, I might feel differently, but the way the ballpark locations are staffed is totally different. This is just a knee-jerk, trying to get in front of the story thing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gossiping about girls' butts and baptizing cocktails after the globetrotting sexual somersaults of Beavis & Prostitutes is beyond or below the periphery of Michelin guide inspectors' humor and taste, but they are not crimes.  It is unfortunate that employees at the Nats' MIC concession stands are likely to be burdened with unemployment as a consequence of their employers' insufferable obnoxiousness and moral destitution.  Employees deserve a generous restitution package.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Poivrot Farci said:

Gossiping about girls' butts and baptizing cocktails after the globetrotting sexual somersaults of Beavis & Prostitutes is beyond or below the periphery of Michelin guide inspectors' humor and taste, but they are not crimes.  It is unfortunate that employees at the Nats' MIC concession stands are likely to be burdened with unemployment as a consequence of their employers' insufferable obnoxiousness and moral destitution.  Employees deserve a generous restitution package.

The stands will be replaced within the first couple months of the season in all likelihood, the Nationals aren't planning to leave the spaces fallow indefinitely.  This will have zero-to-neglible impact on the staffing numbers at Nats Park, Isabella probably has no control over that outside of a management/oversight position or two.  I would bet there is another concept in the wings the could be ramped up pretty rapidly.  After all, there was competition for these spaces in the first place and that is probably reviewed after every season.  Some runners up are going to get their chance, or they'll just slot in a Nats Dogs/Home Run Pizza.  Hopefully it's the former.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/20/2018 at 5:28 PM, silentbob said:

There is a ton of behavior in workplaces that needs to change and doesn't necessarily rise to the legal definition of harassment, but is nonetheless quite harmful to those who have to endure such treatment. 

18 hours ago, Poivrot Farci said:

Gossiping about girls' butts and baptizing cocktails after the globetrotting sexual somersaults of Beavis & Prostitutes is beyond or below the periphery of Michelin guide inspectors' humor and taste, but they are not crimes. 

The lawsuit alleges more than just gossiping about women's body parts and the naming of cocktails. I'm not a lawyer, but subjecting female employees to unwanted sexualized conversations, text messages, and an oversexed work environment is a good way to create a hostile work environment. Can you imagine a company deciding or thinking it is acceptable for the subject line of e-mails or the names of memos to be sex acts? 

Reminds me of a line I read earlier this week about the accusations about Michael Ferro, "There are some acts of misogyny and harassment that are just as much bout reminding women what they can and can't do than they are about sex."

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Eater Will Remove Mike Isabella's Businesses from Its Restaurant Guides" by Jessica Sidman on washingtonian.com

Regarding what I'm going to do with our Dining Guides, we don't have this dilemma, as I have never recommended a single Mike Isabella restaurant other than G Sandwich, which is ranked in Italic. So, the restaurants are still listed and ranked alongside of McDonald's, Papa John's, etc., but you've never once heard me urge people to go anywhere other than G Sandwich, because, quite frankly, these restaurants just aren't that good, and never have been.

I'm afraid Eater has bitten off a larger problem than they can chew, because if-or-when they find out just who else has been active in such behavior, they aren't going to have very large restaurant guides.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DonRocks said:

"Eater Will Remove Mike Isabella's Businesses from Its Restaurant Guides" by Jessica Sidman on washingtonian.com...

...I'm afraid Eater has bitten off a larger problem than they can chew, because if-or-when they find out just who else has been active in such behavior, they aren't going to have very large restaurant guides.

That is an effective reactionary measure to stifle business and stick it to the employees who kind of rely on full seats to get paid, keep their jobs, build résumés.  Thankfully the moral sheriffs at Eater do not investigate who in restaurant management are drunk drivers, adulterers, tax cheats and scofflaws behind on child support.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Poivrot Farci said:

drunk drivers, adulterers, tax cheats and scofflaws behind on child support.

Yeah, this is kind of what I was hinting at - I know people in all four categories (but I will never, ever rat them out - that, I promise, because I know these things in strict confidence). If that makes me a shit, then so be it: My word is my bond, and I gave them my word.

It isn't just "the Chef"; it's the entire network of employees that suffer when you punish a business.

Yes, I get it: There are other opinions, equally valid. Have at it, [but as moderator, I'm telling you in advance that any personal attacks will be deleted.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who could possibly have imagined that a guy who became famous for being a sexist jerk would be a sexist jerk? (In this, I mean to be criticizing not only the sexist jerk, but those who, for profit, enabled his rise from "just a jerk who's a good chef at somebody else's restaurant" to "celebrity with lots of restaurants".)  So, for instance, thanks so much, Eater, for distancing yourself after years of puffery.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike Isabella is no longer eligible for a top industry award in the wake of a sexual harassment lawsuit, by Maura Judkis March 29, 2018, on washingtonpost.com.

Mike Isabella’s Company Sends Out Letter Signed By 10 Women Supporting Him - The restaurateur disputes sexual harassment allegations, by Jessica Sidman, March 29, 2018, on washingtonian.com.  This is less a denial than a claim that he did not harass all women that he may have encountered.  Implying that this means the allegations in the lawsuit are false is somewhat of a logical fallacy.  Apparently his florist also did not bear witness to any untoward behavior on his part.

That said, I have no personal knowledge of any of the facts regarding this situation and my statements reflect my personal opinions only.

The lawyer for Chloe Caras is Debra Katz and she is a heavy hitter and has been recognized as one for many years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, monsterriffs said:

I think nondisclosure agreements are a standard practice in the settlements of lawsuits of any nature.  Not a value judgment of this practice, just an observation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, dcs said:

I think nondisclosure agreements are a standard practice in the settlements of lawsuits of any nature.  Not a value judgment of this practice, just an observation. 

dcs, I can't connect the first part of your sentence with the second - I've signed non-disclosure agreements before, but usually they were because of the danger of divulging intellectual information - how are they (forgive the quotes) "standard practice in the settlement of lawsuits of any nature?" I'm sure it's an obvious point, but I'm having trouble linking the two things - a one-sentence clarification will probably suffice.

Cheers,
Rocks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great story. Really shows MI in a great light. Sounds like a real charmer. Drunk constantly and trying to get others to bang women. 

What makes people think that this guy is in the right? Why would this many people have a story about him? Sounds like an alcoholic with a sexual harassment problem. 

One story is too much, but still needs verification. Five stories, with very little financial stake for the people involved should make people step back and wonder.

Eh... it’s the old school. Presume the women are lying until there’s incontrovertible proof... Which is probably coming. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The HR director signing the letter supporting Isabella seems more than a bit iffy. But at least three of the wonen quoted in this article are/were not employees of Isabella's and not subject to NDAs. This stuff is really damning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Ericandblueboy said:

In the settlement context, the NDA is part of the settlement.  

From a business perspective there are growing reasons on insisting on an NDA upon being hired, more and more of them are used to prevent bad press following someone leaving a firm and if they attach huge penalties for breaking the NDA they can inhibit revealing inappropriate behavior.

Clearly they are and have been used to prevent revealing trade or corporate secrets or intellectual property of value

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original story he could have *maybe* talked his way out of if nothing else had come out.  The Washington Post article brings up numerous incidents which are corroborated by multiple people and gives the idea that the whole operation was a shitshow.  Furthermore it seems like this is likely the tip of the iceberg and that more stories will continue to come out.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, FranklinDubya said:

The original story he could have *maybe* talked his way out of if nothing else had come out.  The Washington Post article brings up numerous incidents which are corroborated by multiple people and gives the idea that the whole operation was a shitshow.  Furthermore it seems like this is likely the tip of the iceberg and that more stories will continue to come out.

One incident could be manufactured.  Multiple incidents from multiple parties show a pattern. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, monsterriffs said:

This is not going to end well for the guy. If even 1% of this is true, it is going to exact a price. But my gut tells me, given the pattern reported on here, it is likely much worse than 1% being true.

2 hours ago, dcs said:

I think nondisclosure agreements are a standard practice in the settlements of lawsuits of any nature.  Not a value judgment of this practice, just an observation. 

It is unclear to me about what NDAs were signed and when and for what reason. An NDA with a (likely large) monetary settlement is indeed typical for suits filed and then rescinded.  But it sounds like the company made everyone sign an NDA as a condition of employment. If what the suit filed against him claims is true ('....many Mike Isabella Concepts employees have been required to sign NDAs barring them from sharing information with anyone, including a significant other, about “details of the personal and business lives of Mike Isabella, his family members, friends, business associates and dealings, including any television programs concerning Mike Isabella and his restaurants.”...'), it sounds like a broad likely unenforceable kind of thing. Especially with the ridiculous penalty of $500K per instance.  For example, what the heck does 'details of the personal and business lives....'actually mean? Is harassment, which is basically illegal (right?) supposedly "covered"by this NDA? So if you see illegal behavior you're not allowed to tell anybody about it? With the light finally being shone on the horribleness that caused the #MeToo thing to finally get the ongoing attention it needs, I find it unlikely for this NA to be upheld as enforceable.  Further, if it continues to exist after a person leaves the employ of that company and try to have claws and be enforceable, well, I'm not the judge, but I think it'll be very interesting to see what happens.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, DonRocks said:

dcs, I can't connect the first part of your sentence with the second - I've signed non-disclosure agreements before, but usually they were because of the danger of divulging intellectual information - how are they (forgive the quotes) "standard practice in the settlement of lawsuits of any nature?" I'm sure it's an obvious point, but I'm having trouble linking the two things - a one-sentence clarification will probably suffice.

Cheers,
Rocks

Let's say you buy a cup of coffee at a fast food restaurant, spill it on yourself, and you receive second degree burns.  You sue the company and they agree to settle.  As a condition of settlement they are going to require you to agree not to disclose the settlement amount to others except your spouse, lawyers, etc.  Might the world be a better and more fair place if people knew what compensation they might be entitled to for their injuries caused by the negligence of others?  Perhaps.  Would companies be more reluctant to settle lawsuits if this information were freely disseminated?  Probably.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, dcs said:

Let's say you buy a cup of coffee at a fast food restaurant, spill it on yourself, and you receive second degree burns.  You sue the company and they agree to settle.  As a condition of settlement they are going to require you to agree not to disclose the settlement amount to others except your spouse, lawyers, etc.  Might the world be a better and more fair place if people knew what compensation they might be entitled to for their injuries caused by the negligence of others?  Perhaps.  Would companies be more reluctant to settle lawsuits if this information were freely disseminated?  Probably.

I see now - the non-disclosure agreements you referred to are part-and-parcel of settling out-of-court; not an issue of contention going *into* court - that's what I wasn't seeing: I knew I was missing something simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, dcs said:

Let's say you buy a cup of coffee at a McDonald’s, spill it on your vag, and you receive third degree burns.  You sue McDonald’s and they refuse to settle.  So the case goes to trial and you win almost $3 million in punitive damages but the judge thinks the jurors are nuts so he reduces the damages by 80%.  You later enter into a confidential settlement with McDonald's.

Just fleshing out the story....:ph34r:

Edited by Ericandblueboy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading this all reminds me of when, many years ago, Don posted a less than flattering account of his first impressions of Graffiato. Sometime around midnight that night, Isabella went on a belligerent and spiteful twitter rampage in Don's direction that these days we'd consider nothing less than presidential.  It was all taken down before morning and generally escaped the public eye, but I saw it and it always stuck with me (and made it pretty easy to find other places to eat). 

Independent of the result of the lawsuits, business fallout, and ego hits, I hope Mr. Isabella gets himself the help it appears he needs.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, ad.mich said:

Reading this all reminds me of when, many years ago, Don posted a less than flattering account of his first impressions of Graffiato. Sometime around midnight that night, Isabella went on a belligerent and spiteful twitter rampage in Don's direction that these days we'd consider nothing less than presidential.  It was all taken down before morning and generally escaped the public eye, but I saw it and it always stuck with me (and made it pretty easy to find other places to eat). 

Independent of the result of the lawsuits, business fallout, and ego hits, I hope Mr. Isabella gets himself the help it appears he needs.

Really? I didn't know this until just now. I thought my review was fair and accurate: I went in with optimism, and had a decidedly mixed experience: All told, I spent about six hours, perhaps $200 of my own money, and some pretty serious mental effort producing that review - Isabella did well to take his tweets down, as they would have invoked Newton's Third Law - I've written some pretty stupid things after a few drinks at night also, so no harm done, especially if he was thoughtful enough to delete them while in a normal state of mind. Still, he seems to have gone out of his way to have none of his staff participate on this website, although some former employees are now members (if there is any current or former staff who can confirm this, please write me in anonymity and my assurance of complete confidence - it's more of a curiosity than anything). My visit to the Richmond Graffiato a few years ago was downright awful - the "pepperoni sauce" tasted *nothing* like pepperoni - how anyone could screw up a simple recipe so completely is beyond me; the pepperoni sauce I first had in Chinatown tasted a *lot* like pepperoni, and was remarkable. Ironically, nobody has heard me criticize Isabella personally, ever (I'm not saying current criticism isn't justified; I'm merely saying that I haven't criticized him, so for him to have gone after me on twitter after *that* review probably means there are or were extraneous circumstances). Also ironically, I remember he was also once accused of racism, and although I don't remember the specifics, I felt the accusations were unsubstantiated by what I read: I wrote him on Facebook, and told him I'd be happy to stand up for him - "he" (or someone responsible for his Facebook account) replied with a simple 'thank you.'  Assuming that was him, it's the only communication we've ever had.

Really - read that review, and see if anything is so terrible: Graffiato is not, and has never been, a particularly good restaurant, although certain individual items were quite good, if absurdly priced.

I once posted a less-than-flattering thing about Kapnos, then broke the news about it replacing Vapiano in Bethesda (it pays to know people inside certain operations), and one of the two brothers - I don't know their first names - issued something of a smug tweet which I also believe was removed, but I saw that one and rolled my eyes. I also posted a *very* positive little write-up of Bandolero - everyone seems to have forgotten that the staff at Bandolero was accused of some pretty serious sex crimes. Read that thread, and the link to the DCist article, in light of everything now going on - keep in mind that no names are mentioned. Attorneys in our midst might be interested in reading the case documents.

Meh, depending on what was said, I'm just as much fair game for criticism as they all are, so again - no foul, no offense taken.

About the situation in general, there are a couple very important former employees who haven't spoken a word on-record, either positive or negative, and I find that a bit odd, as either of the two people I'm thinking of have the potential to either accelerate or decelerate these accusations. Thinking about Bandolero reminds me that Jennifer Lucy hasn't gone on-record either.

The only thing I'll say about this entire situation is that it is *such* a blessing not to have to see that fake smile anymore - it was everywhere, and all the critics were falling for it. I'd love it if someone would compile a list of articles written about this person and his restaurants in our major media outlets. Even the authors might be shocked at how much they were duped by his PR-driven march to fame. I distinctly remember talking with one influential critic, and I essentially said that Isabella was heading downhill in a hurry. "Nuh-uh-uh!" was the response, telling me all about the food court in Tysons Galleria, etc., "He's only now just getting started!" Hoo, boy - I wasn't talking about "building an empire"; I was talking about the quality going downhill (which it did, in a hurry, although it didn't have far to fall - several sandwiches at G Sandwich being the exceptions - look at this write-up about their Chicken Parm, btw).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People are still eating at Mike Isabella’s restaurants, by Vittoria Elliott for Washingtonian.

This woman seems to want people to stop eating at Mike’s restaurants.  I’m wondering if that isn’t double punishment?  If Mike loses the lawsuit, he’s going to pay damages.  By denying him business, is he suffering more than he should?  What if it takes away his ability to pay damages and ends up hurting the plaintiff?  It also hurts his employees until they get a new job?  Assuming his businesses goes down, should he ever be able to work for someone else?  

I would dare say that Facebook has harmed society more than Isabella (by helping to elect Trump and enact his insane tax cuts) but how many people have deleted their FB page?  I guess FB isn’t directly culpable.  

It's one thing to avoid Mike's restaurants yourself, but is it overboard to tell other people not to go to his restaurants?  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/12/2018 at 10:04 PM, Ericandblueboy said:

t's one thing to avoid Mike's restaurants yourself, but is it overboard to tell other people not to go to his restaurants? 

Nope. He deserves what he gets. Treat anyone like a piece of crap, you get what you deserve. For me, it is especially atrocious if you do it to a woman just because she is a women. He deserves to go down in flames.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Pool Boy said:

Nope. He deserves what he gets. Treat anyone like a piece of crap, you get what you deserve. For me, it is especially atrocious if you do it to a woman just because she is a women. He deserves to go down in flames.

What does he deserve?  Be a pauper for sexual harassment?  His investors should go down too for shitty due diligence or oversight?  Why isn’t a judgement for the women he harassed sufficient?  

Let’s say I punched you and you sued me.  Everyone else should boycott my business because I punched you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eric, nobody has taken advantage of the free market more than Mike has (well, okay, Jose Andres has) - you live by PR-driven public opinion, you die by PR-driven public opinion. Or, not: Perhaps he'll emerge from this unscathed.

When he said he had decided to go back working the line at Graffiato, I just about got down on my knees; now, I have doubts about why he assumed that stance - only doubts, but still, doubts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ericandblueboy said:

I find shaming people who eat at his restaurants a little harsh.  

I'm not sure what you're citing (I haven't read all the articles), but I agree that shaming people who eat at his restaurants would seem a bit harsh.

If it's the Washingtonian article, I gave that a cursory read earlier, and I interpreted it as "Mike Isabella isn't dead yet." I could easily be wrong, but that's the first thing I've seen that demonstrates any real push-back by the company that the press has latched onto; I don't remember what the author's personal opinion was, however, and my interpretation could easily be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, DonRocks said:

I'm not sure what you're citing (I haven't read all the articles), but I agree that shaming people who eat at his restaurants would seem a bit harsh.

If it's the Washingtonian article, I gave that a cursory read earlier, and I interpreted it as "Mike Isabella isn't dead yet." I could easily be wrong, but that's the first thing I've seen that demonstrates any real push-back by the company that the press has latched onto; I don't remember what the author's personal opinion was, however, and my interpretation could easily be wrong.

I think the woman who asked people why they ate at Mike’s restaurants notwithstanding the sexual harassment allegation is shaming those people.  I wasn’t there so I don’t know what she asked or her tone of voice.

Why is Bruner Yang still in business because he physically assaulted someone and was arrested in a domestic violence incident?  Why are his restaurants the hottest joints in town?  

BY was also accused by his partners of misappropriating money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...