Thursday, September 29, 2016

Seventh and Ninth Circuits Strike Down Class-Action Waivers

After reading the Labor Board's opposition to Kent Security's recent motion, it got me to review legal decisions regarding class-action waivers, and sure enough there has been pushback from some key circuits regarding these waivers: the Ninth and Seventh Circuits have ruled that they are illegal, directly conflicting with other circuits that have ruled that they are legal. Currently, Kent Security is caught in the middle of this national debate, and if I may say so I am happy that the Labor Board has decided they are the poster child for bad employers using these provisions for other than noble means. It looks like the Supreme Court will have to decide on the issue, and, supposing they affirm the legality of these waivers, expect the other two branches to work feverishly in the coming years to introduce legislation in opposition. Bottom line: Kent Security is stuck in the mud.

I might also add that I was instrumental in bringing the Labor Board's attention to this company, assisted by a low-IQ former district manager and the biology major who currently oversees former law enforcement, as well as the beta male CEO who, rather than face problems head-on, prefers to passive-aggressively pay a lawyer ten or twenty grand to fix the problem by shuffling paperwork filled with citations. The CEO would rather plunk down tens of thousands of dollars than address a simple problem from employees -- you can tell he's in his spot by family connections.

This is a company that has repeatedly been sued by pregnant former employees (another sign of beta males abounding), is currently being sued for allegedly blinding someone with mace or pepper spray, thinks that decorating the workplace with wooden paddles is a "weird joke," has been sanctioned by a court, has been sued by a cultural landmark in Ft. Lauderdale, has been sued by two lawyers who previously represented them (and we'll deal with this topic in a future post), has no African Americans, Haitians, or Latinos on its executive web page despite being headquartered in North Miami, posts fake reviews on Google to try to make the company look good, has been accused of wage theft in Miami, had a whistleblower lawsuit also in Miami, was investigated by an ethics commission in Miami over concerns about solicitation for business, and I'm sure there's a lot more.

So, this is a poster child for bad employers using these waivers for questionable reasons. I'm very, very pleased, to say the least, that they are now publicly in the fight over this issue, because no company can make these waivers look as bad as they are as Kent Security, by showing the public just what motivates companies to use them.

But there's a lot more to this story than the class-action waiver -- this is a story of a company repeatedly refusing to admit any mistakes, and as a result seeing a problem fester more and more and more, to the point that there is a rotting open sore that all of South Florida is able to smell by now. We can see that the Labor Board has gotten a good whiff of this. This is like the sitcom Married with Children on crack.

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

We've Reached 10,000 Twitter Followers

So, we've reached 10,000 Twitter followers. As shows, these are authentic followers, not the bots offered from some special package in an SEO forum.

Our success on Twitter has been such that we won't even bother adding other people first -- we are now influential and people can opt to follow us, though we tend to follow back as a courtesy and to build loyalty.

In the meantime, we will continue to build our media and may begin broadcasting about labor issues on YouTube. This is like a snowball that just keeps on growing, and we think we can compete with major media out there.

Only time will tell where this is going, but it's obviously going somewhere big.

Sunday, September 25, 2016

A Breakdown of Kent Security's Motion

We've been covering Kent Security's recent Labor Board case and the company's support of class-action waivers on this blog, and have pointed out that, though there is legal precedent in support of them, increasingly they are being viewed with skepticism by the public and media, and the federal government is stepping in, despite court cases and even Supreme Court decisions in favor of them. Personally, I happen to think they are used to hide or continue misconduct, but what I think is neither here nor there.

What Kent Security is facing right now is an agency that, true to its mandate, is resisting bad court decisions to defend the rights of workers. While some might argue that the Labor Board is stepping out of its proper bounds, I strongly disagree, as the Founding Fathers knew that any of the three branches could turn rogue, hence the checks and balances within our government. This is why I welcome President Obama's executive order that discourages these types of provisions. Also, any of the three branches in theory can make mistakes and change their decisions on issues. The bottom line is that nothing is set in stone for eternity when it comes to law, except the inalienable rights of the citizenry.

What I would like to do is bring these issues into proper context for the employees and future employees of Kent Security. As I pointed out, Kent Security's upper-executive staff, as shown on the company's website (which I have taken a screenshot of and sent to the Labor Board), is all-White (and we will be covering this some more in future posts) in a city that is extremely diverse racially and ethnically, and in an industry that also is very diverse. Given this fact, it should be no surprise that Kent Security is fighting, behind the scenes -- though I have put it out public -- to keep its low-wage minority employees from filing a class-action lawsuit against the company. Yes, in theory the EEOC could file a class-action lawsuit against the company, despite the waiver, though this probability is low (however, Kent Security may be at greater risk now that this information is being made public).

Amusingly, despite the lack of racial minorities at the highest level of the company, as shown on the company's own website, Kent Security has basically hired a minority -- going by the name -- to represent them in a labor charge to dismiss the complaint regarding their class-action waiver. Here is the evidence:

Kent Security supports class-action waiver.

Presumably this attorney for Bluerock Legal thinks he's witty, given that he has a law degree, after all. He likely makes well above the average person in Miami. He argues, using semantics and specious reasoning, that there is no "substantive right" to a class or collective action. All of this sounds good on paper, and no doubt there would be thunderous applause from other attorneys who make a similar income to him, but at the end of the day this lawyer is simply doing the bidding of his corporate paymasters, as is the case with his law partner, and in so doing he's actively repressing the basic rights of minority employees who have absolutely no say in these affairs, contrary to the theory, arguments, pretensions, etc. This is a company headquartered in North Miami, surrounded by a very large Haitian community, and I see not a single Haitian on the company's executive page -- not even a Latino, but that's another topic.

Similarly, Kent Security hired a female attorney in the case against Ms. Greenfield, though that didn't end too well -- the company ended up getting sued by this attorney, and was hit with a court sanction. I wouldn't be surprised if the company hires another female for its new pregnancy discrimination lawsuit. We'll see.

Friday, September 23, 2016

Documentary on Mandatory Arbitration Agreements

Here is an interesting documentary about mandatory arbitration agreements, pointing out how they subvert the Seventh Amendment rights of Americans and encourage corporate misconduct. While this documentary covers some of the problems within these agreements, there are others not mentioned, though this is a good investigative report overall given how thorough it is. 

In line with what I previously wrote, the government is now starting to step in to question the widespread use of these provisions, despite Kent Security's lawyers barking to the effect that legal precedent supports these provisions. Yes, it's true that the legal precedents are in place, but given how fundamentally unjust they are, logic and common sense dictate there will be pushback, and eventually the laws will be modified or overturned to make them more just, since our legal system is self-correcting. I will elaborate more on this in time. It only took me a day or two to witness this on Twitter, with the story circulating of a significant executive order by President Obama (EO 13673) signed in 2014 making it mandatory for certain federal contractors to eliminate these provisions for certain employment disputes by October 25, 2016. In other words, businesses stand to lose millions of dollars and their reputations by continuing with these practices, notwithstanding the legal precedent to which Kent Security salivates.

Again, Kent Security's insistence on these waivers raises a legitimate question: why the fear over a class action or a jury trial? What are you afraid of? LOL. Maybe the Hurley case has something to do with it. As we can see with Obama's executive order, these waivers are still in effect, but the key is that the pushback against the proliferation of these agreements is already taking place, and will only accelerate in time. The checks and balances of our government and the self-correcting nature of our legal system will prove, in the end, that companies willing to expend significant resources to draft 20 pages of vomit to clog noble federal agencies such as the National Labor Relations Board are more likely than not entities with something to hide.

My Letter to Chairman of NLRB

As an update, I have sent a letter to the Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board, Mark Gaston Pearce, including a website screenshot expressing my concerns about the lack of racial diversity among Kent Security's high executive staff. I also explained that it's no surprise, given this and other problems, that the company would be opposed to the class-action remedy among its employees, especially those making barely above minimum wage.

It is my hope that the Chairman will read my letter and take it seriously.

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

No Racial Minorities on Kent Security's Executive Team Web Page

Kent Security, located in North Miami, lacks racial minorities on its executive team web page. I'm not going to link to the page and unintentionally endorse it, but it can be found via the "About Us" and then "Executive Team" links from the company's home page.

Yes, it's true that the company has hired district managers who are racial and ethnic minorities, but from my experience as a former road supervisor, it was common knowledge that the district managers (sometimes given the title of "vice president") were basically yes-men who could be very paranoid about keeping their jobs -- the title was largely just a label.

Racial minorities, particularly from the Caribbean (e.g., Haitians) and Latin America, who live in and around Miami, should openly discuss why a company that claims to be the largest private security company in South Florida lacks a single racial minority on its executive team page. This should raise eyebrows among employees and prospective employees.

If you are a Kent Security employee, you seriously ought to be asking this question. The question here isn't if there should be affirmative action or some type of token handed to someone -- the question is, with the large pool of minorities in the security field in such a diverse area as South Florida, why one single racial minority is not on that executive page. Saying it's a family-owned business doesn't cut it -- there are people outside of the family on that page.

There is a problem. Also, throwing statistics around like the percentage of employees who are minorities, especially at the corporate building, also doesn't cut it, if all of these employees are in practice subservient and fearful of their jobs to those in charge who are not racial minorities.

Yes, I am a light-skinned Hispanic, though my Cuban genealogy goes back to the very founding of the island, and in that sense I am privileged relative to darker-skinned ethnic and racial minorities, but I don't have to be a brown-skinned racial minority in Miami to see that there is a problem, or to acknowledge the obstacles faced by my Latin American brothers and sisters of a darker hue. This is disturbing to say the least.

Again, this is a legitimate topic of discussion in a city as diverse as Miami.

Monday, September 19, 2016

Response to Motion for Summary Judgment

I read large portions of Kent Security's Motion for Summary Judgment, and quite frankly it's 20 pages of quasi-eloquent drivel (worthy of perhaps a B or C+ in an average university). However, I have to admit that I have gotten laughs out of how the company's stupidity in the Naples district, as covered by media outlets, has plagued it to today, and how it's likely to do so for the foreseeable future.

One positive outcome, at least, is that a law firm will get a steady stream of income for a while. On our side, we are enjoying the laughs as Kent Security has to deal with an agency that philosophically is at odds with its repeated misconduct. Suffice it to say that, while it's true that mandatory arbitration agreements have gained some force due to favorable legal decisions, as noted by Bluerock Legal, only now, as is the case with civil forfeiture and other monstrosities that have grown like a cancer in our society, are we seeing the negative effects of these agreements as they become more widely implemented, arguably beyond what they were intended -- legal and academic observers are noticing a rise in misconduct. This isn't me saying it -- it's mainstream news. Likewise, the comments sections of these stories are filled with horrified readers regarding the coercive nature of these agreements. At the end of the day, we do live in a democracy, not a lawyerocracy among the top 1%.

Wells Fargo, famous for enforcing these agreements, is currently embroiled in a new scandal involving fraudulently opening accounts, and observers are rightfully asking if perhaps such agreements, fortified by numerous court decisions, enabled its misconduct. Similarly, media pundits and legal analysts are asking if perhaps the misconduct at Fox News was enabled by such agreements, especially with their confidentiality provisions. My point is, we may very well have seen the peak ascendancy of such agreements and are on our way to seeing them crumble as more scandals come to light, arguably enabled by natural inequalities in bargaining power. An update will be coming soon, since this is a very important subject.

The law, as other things in this world, is constantly in flux as attitudes change due to new information or growth of consciousness. Plenty of people live today who experienced segregation -- which was legal at one point. The shift against these agreements will be coming -- it's just a matter of time. Sure, Kent Security may have to appeal to judges outside of NLRB jurisdiction (though it's still amusing to see them squirm in discomfort to this agency founded by FDR), but eventually there will be no place to run as more people become aware of the social consequences to the proliferation of these agreements.

Wednesday, September 14, 2016


Our republic is in crisis, apparently, not only because of the economic problems it faces, but also because the Democratic candidate for the White House appears to be ill. I saw the video of her apparently having seizures from Infowars, and I have to agree with them that it shouldn't be considered a "conspiracy theory" to raise questions about her frequent falls, coughing fits, and seizures. Though the Clintons seem to have sociopathic tendencies (to be fair, Donald Trump seems like a narcissist, and it's not clear if one type is worse, since sociopaths can channel their minds to do positive things for society -- take surgeons, but I digress), they have done some good for this country, and the economy was powerful under Bill Clinton, though he played a role in the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which led to the 2008 financial crisis. Hillary Clinton also represents a continuation of the neoliberal and neoconservative status quos that have dominated American economics and politics, respectively. Trump, contrary to what his fans believe, probably does not have the wealth he claims to have and has filed for multiple bankrupcies, and also outsources the manufacture of his products, though he is on target regarding the problems with economic neoliberalism. He's also the least Christian of any politician I have seen, going by his character and insults, though evangelicals and Christian conservatives are enamored with him. It's not clear, though, that protectionism will provide the immediate boost to the American economy as Trump claims, since the very reason why products are cheap at Walmart -- where no doubt many of his supporters shop -- is precisely because of the lack of tariffs and open trade. There needs to be manufacturing back in the U.S., but there are no quick fixes, and as the Germans and Japanese prove, developed countries can flourish with third-world labor pools competing against them by emphasizing quality and innovation. Trump probably does not know how to navigate through this complex system without disturbing the lives of millions of Americans, given his lack of experience outside of his multiple bankruptcies related to real estate. Mark Cuban would be a better fit as an entrepreneur, given that he is wealthier and more intelligent than Trump, but I doubt Cuban wants to run.

Anyway, it is a very serious problem to have a front-runner with a serious illness, and with all due respect for Hillary, she should consider passing the baton to Bernie Sanders. Like Trump, Bernie is opposed to the neoliberal regime, and Bernie is more practical about the situation. If this nation invested in its infrastructure and education instead of bailing out banks -- which it has spent trillions on since 2008 -- as Bernie proposes, would the nation really be worse off? Besides, there is currently a deflationary crisis afflicting this country, given that wealthy Baby Boomers are retiring in droves. Generally, people spend less when they retire. The entire developed world is engulfed in a deflationary spiral due to demographics, including Japan and even China. Printing billions of dollars to offset these very powerful forces to spend on infrastructure and education instead of bailing out zombie banks would probably bring the economy more in balance, and create a better standard of living for most people. The helicopter drops of money from the world's central banks to counter deflation are coming anyway, so we might as well channel the funds intelligently for the social good.  The reality is, printing money that simply sits on bank balance sheets does nothing for Main Street except harm and destroy it.

At this critical point in time, the Democrats should think like members of an Olympic relay sprinting team and get someone else in who has a fighting chance against Trump. This man is Bernie Sanders. Bernie will get us out of the deflationary depression and rebuild needed infrastructure and jobs. Bernie will remove the debts weighing down millions of college graduates and destroying their futures, thus further stimulating the economy at a time of demographic crisis. It just does not look good to have a seriously ill person as a candidate for the presidency.

Some Thoughts About Kent Security Lawsuits

Lately I have had some thoughts about the lawsuits I have publicized, so I'll elaborate on them to hammer home my point. I have mentioned previously how cowardly it is -- and granted it is a matter of opinion -- for a man to battle a bunch of women through the courts. This is why, honestly, though the president of Kent Security is a central figure in the scandal I have been blogging about, I haven't focused too much on her. If she wants to prance around the beach claiming she has some special insights into spirituality, that's fine, though her record speaks for itself. She has, almost single-handedly, destroyed the Naples district by backing the disgraced district manager. By the estimates of people who have spoken to me, Kent of Naples lost, conservatively, $250,000 in contracts and business relationships following the media coverage of the workplace bullying in the district (to say nothing about what happened outside the district). This was done largely by her -- blaming a road sup for this is pathetic and passing the buck when it's on you. As a president of a company, you're supposed to check your district managers, but this doesn't need to be said. To be fair, accounts were going to go down anyway, but the news accelerated the process. It's actually laughable to screw up this bad, and again, though I think she has botched her legacy at Kent Security (Google "kent security" and you'll instantly find our story), to put it mildly, the only explanation for her continued presence overseeing former law enforcement employees is privilege, to be brutally honest. Most people don't get to jump from becoming a schoolteacher to being the president of a security company in just a few years. But, again, there is a consequence to artificially granting people high positions, and I think the chickens are coming home to roost. Let's move on to these juicy lawsuits. She's not worth much time for now (and never really was worth much time or money to the company, if the $250,000 estimate above is accurate).

I made fun of Kent Security picking lawsuits with a couple of women sequentially -- Ms. Greenfield and Ms. Langbein -- and suggested it was a beta male move, especially considering that the former was supposedly pregnant while employed with Kent Security. In the latter case, the CEO was named as a defendant, among others, and Kent Security was slapped with a $700 sanction by the court. Shortly after this tongue-in-cheek post, it turns out another formerly pregnant employee is suing the company. I'm not going to pick sides, but it's interesting that two formerly pregnant women have gone after the company in less than 10 years, and one apparently succeeded legally. It doesn't need to be said that pregnant women are very vulnerable -- physically and so forth. I am not a woman, but I imagine, emotionally, a woman might be more sensitive during this time due to her maternal instinct and focus to protect her baby.

Without taking sides because I don't know the plaintiff of the new case, something just seems dirty... grimy about this. Just going by the Kent of Naples "Wall of Shame" case -- which involved retaliation against a female guard and ultimately the termination of the female operations manager shortly after the news story broke -- and the fact that the company went after two women sequentially previous to this scandal, there is, in my humble opinion, a cowardly, unmanly air to all of this. If I were a business owner, I'd be deeply embarrassed about repeatedly fighting a bunch of pregnant women. It's just not a manly undertaking, you know? It's nothing to be proud of. It just seems to me, and maybe I'm off here, that you're supposed to look after pregnant women and make sure they're OK, you know? I mean, being sued repeatedly in this manner? Did I just land on another planet where rules are upside-down?

My point is, if this is supposed to be a display of toughness, I'm sorry to say that it is the exact opposite, and I'm sure my female readers/lurkers will agree. Fighting a bunch of pregnant women is just the most beta thing a man can ever do. Let me repeat this: fighting a bunch of pregnant women is the most BETA thing a man can ever do, business owner or otherwise. It is disgraceful beyond words.

Maybe I'm guilty of not doing away with the gender binary -- and admittedly I have shifted my views in favor of transgender rights lately, because I honestly don't care what people do in their own private lives -- but I have to call a spade a spade. By any standard this looks pathetic. Anyway, that's my rant for now. /rant

Friday, September 9, 2016

Is Pepper Spray Dangerous?

The recent lawsuit alleging a Kent Security officer "maced" a person and caused permanent injuries, and the company's response, has pushed me to do some research. Admittedly, I'm no scientist, but I found some credible resources to get people thinking and talking about pepper spray. I don't know if pepper spray or mace was allegedly used, but I'll limit this post to pepper spray and leave mace for a future post.

Manufacturers, unsurprisingly, are quick to point out the safety of pepper spray, which has the active ingredient of capsaicin, a component in chili peppers. It causes temporary blindness due to inflammation of the eyes. Pepper spray is big business -- I have even bought the stuff myself, though never used it. Law enforcement agencies, likewise, are inclined to emphasize its safety, given that it is perceived as useful for restraining violent or potentially violent criminals. The problem that I found, based on my perusing of various sources, is that studies lack a large sample to derive definitive conclusions. Moreover, while prominent websites declare pepper spray to be safe, plenty of medical experts have doubts about the safety of this weapon and can actually point to cases of permanent or prolonged damage to vision among some patients, especially when treatment has been avoided or delayed. The problem I see is that conclusions tend to be drawn based on a majority of cases, when individuals can react very differently than the norm.

Scientific mumbo-jumbo aside -- and we'll get to that in a moment -- deaths attributed to pepper spray, directly and indirectly, are commonly reported in the media, and certainly have occurred in South Florida. A Google search of "pepper spray deaths" also reveals innumerable articles and cases of deaths attributed to pepper spray, such as this article from the Los Angeles Times.

One case that attracted global attention was the pepper-spraying incident at a UC Davis campus by campus police against peaceful Occupy protesters in 2011. This incident triggered plenty of embarrassment and a lawsuit against the university, leading to a $1 million settlement. Notably, some of the students reported emotional difficulties as well as lower grades following the attack, according to the ACLU. One young woman reported continuous panic attacks and nightmares. Similarly, Amnesty International has repeatedly compared pepper spray to torture. Perhaps the lawyers battling Kent Security in their alleged mace attack case may want to look into the famous UC Davis case if they haven't already.

Another problem pointed out by some academics is that different products may have different chemical compositions or strengths. Possibly, other compounds besides capsaicin may cause permanent eye damage. Thus, an honest study to determine the safety of pepper spray would have to involve a wide variety of products as well as the compounds found in these products, with further attempts to isolate their potential effects. In short, it's not very simple to do, and declaring pepper spray as safe in the absence of such a thorough study is not scientifically appropriate. Though I am not a scientist or doctor, my skimming of various scientific documents points to pepper spray causing permanent injuries and even death in some individuals for a variety of reasons.

Besides the UC Davis case, another case involving security officers controversially using pepper spray -- as well as dogs -- on protesters occurred in North Dakota. This protest against the construction of a pipeline was covered and filmed by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now below. The use of force against the protesters may also trigger lawsuits. In my humble opinion, the Native Americans put up a valorous fight against these private contractors destroying their sacred lands. The Native Americans represent the very soul of this great nation, as the original inhabitants of these lands. Their protest against corporate interlopers is quintessentially American.

Wednesday, September 7, 2016

Another Pregnant Woman Sues Kent Security

Another pregnant former employee is suing Kent Security, alleging she was placed in an environment undergoing construction and lacking a restroom upon revealing she was pregnant, in an effort to make her quit. The complaint, filed August 31, 2016 in Miami, suggests this location lacked or had inadequate air conditioning, which for many Floridians would be unbearable. While we take no stance on the merits of the complaint, the allegations are explosive. This isn't the first time the company has dealt with a pregnancy discrimination case: according to a January press release of SEIU, the Greenfield v. Kent Security case involved alleged pregnancy discrimination, and it looks like Kent Security lost or settled that case, according to records. They then had a legal tussle with the attorney who represented them in that case and were slapped with a court sanction. Here is the new complaint for readers.

Again, while we take no stance on the complaint, since we do not know the complainant, we are concerned about the allegations. Here is a guide on pregnancy discrimination in the workplace by National Advocates for Pregnant Women based in New York City. Specifically, the defendant in this case is Kent Security of Palm Beach Inc., which the company argues is also the proper name of the defendant in the other explosive lawsuit alleging permanent injuries due to a mace attack by a security officer in Pembroke Pines.

Kent Security of Palm Beach sued by pregnant woman.

Kent Security of Palm Beach is sued again.

Kent Security of Palm Beach keeps getting sued.

Kent Security of Palm Beach sued by pregnant former employee.

Lawsuits don't stop for Kent Security.

Kent Security of Palm Beach slammed in explosive suit.

Florida Attorney takes pregnancy lawsuit.

Tuesday, September 6, 2016

Another Legal Update

Currently, we are looking into legal precedents at this time. This isn't a game. We are not going to go quietly like Pat Hurley. Our opposition messed with the wrong person. When you expose employees to the garbage covered by the Miami New Times and Fox 4, and expect that you are hedged, you're wrong.

No amount of money will be able to stop the force of justice. No amount of money can topple our First Amendment and National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) rights. We're only going to get better at our SEO. Legally, we can assure our readers that there will be problems for our opposition.

Arbitration or a lawsuit can be very costly. This is what ego can do to you when you refuse to admit the humanity of your employees and brush problems under the carpet. When you mess with the dignity of employees, the blowback will always, always be unpredictable.

But again, this isn't about money. This is about public safety and behaving in accordance with state and federal laws. All of this could have been avoided had the company used common sense, and maybe thought twice about giving a biology major and a dolt the power they had given their questionable backgrounds.

Monday, September 5, 2016

Labor Day Humor

There is a thread going on at initiated by a devious flying cat leaving a rainbow chemtrail.

Rumor has it that, given Donald Trump's fixation on building walls, he is a fan of the "Kent Security Wall of Shame." Here are two "walls" that unintentionally convey a similar message.

Donald Trump excrement art on wall.
Donald Trump Wall

The embarrassing Kent Security "Wall of Shame."
Kent Security of Naples "Wall of Shame"

The first wall suggests that Donald Trump, the Republican candidate for the White House, is full of it. At least, according to Rush Limbaugh admitting on his radio show to a Los Angeles caller, Trump has been full of it on some issues. 

The second wall, which was publicized by the Miami New Times and Fox 4, was photographed from a gatehouse and has, directly and indirectly, triggered multiple government investigations and potential litigation.

It seems Kent Security has a giant pile of you know what sitting on its lap right now, thanks in large part to the former district manager and the biology major who backed him.

Sunday, September 4, 2016

Kent Security Alleged Mace Attack Response to Admissions Request

Kent Security has responded to a request for admissions from the plaintiff regarding the alleged mace attack. In these filings, dated April 4, 2016, according to Broward County records, Kent Security acknowledges it provided security at the location of the alleged incident in Pembroke Pines, admits it has a general liability insurance policy, and denies specific claims of damages suffered by the plaintiff.

As a matter of lay opinion, it seems it will be a mammoth task for Kent Security to disprove, or counter the claim of, permanent pain and suffering as a result of the alleged incident. Courts by their nature must take these claims seriously and investigate them thoroughly, and indeed for many people being attacked by a security officer with mace or pepper spray would be physically and emotionally traumatizing. While we take no stance on the merits of the complaint, we believe the public should know more about the dangers of pepper spray and mace, so we will be posting information about this topic in the future on this blog. If there is one positive thing that can come about from this allegedly horrific incident, it is that the public can become more informed about the dangers of these weapons.

Interestingly, Kent Security is denying medical expenses claimed by the plaintiff. This seems odd, given that an alleged victim of mace or pepper spray is likely to need some type of medical care, especially if the situation involves police. It just seems, from a lay perspective, if a weapon was used as claimed, that Kent Security is reflexively denying everything as a tactic to delay the proceedings, given how counterintuitive their legal responses are.

Kent Security responds to admissions request.

Kent Security denies liability in lawsuit.

Poor Training and Supervision at Kent Security of Naples

Also as a matter of opinion, a company that allows a work environment to degenerate as seen in the picture below cannot be taken seriously regarding public safety. This picture clearly shows poor training and supervision at Kent of Naples. While some might argue that this is irrelevant to the Pembroke Pines incident, it's worth noting that the "Wall of Shame" bullying -- and matters of public safety that we have not yet publicized -- was brought to the attention of corporate in Miami, and it was brushed under the carpet. The "Wall of Shame" case also begs another question: if corporate in Miami cannot protect the dignity and rights of its own employees (indeed, the Labor Board decided in favor of the employees), how is it expected to protect the public? One cannot logically and in practice separate one from the other. A company that so flagrantly disrespects its own employees cannot be expected to show much respect for the public.

Poor training and supervision at Kent Security of Naples.
Poor Training and Supervision at Kent Security of Naples

Friday, September 2, 2016

Kurszewski v. Kent Security Services

Here is a video overview of Kurszewski v. Kent Security Services Inc. of Miami, filed April 22, 2008. We don't know the outcome of this lawsuit and which party prevailed. However, this can be an opportunity for our readers to learn about the ERISA rights of workers. Here is another educational booklet I found about ERISA online.

While we don't know the exact outcome of this particular case (Kent Security may have prevailed for all we know), it seems Kent Security has difficulty avoiding the courts. Just a year after this case, Kent Security dealt with two FLSA cases, one of which, filed in Ft. Myers, demonstrates that Kent of Naples is a repeat violator of employee rights. It looks like Kent Security settled or lost both of the FLSA cases.

As a matter of opinion, constant litigation is a fundamentally unmanly form of behavior. The file on Ms. Greenfield in particular is disturbing, and the subsequent Ms. Langbein case screams beta male. Real men face others outside of the court and work on preventing this milquetoast paper-shuffling from arising in the first place.

Here is the Urban Dictionary. The website is gold.

Kent Security litigious behavior.