Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Lodge at Hualapai accused on social media of forcing bartenders to pay stolen money after robbery at gunpoint

  1. #1
    Lodge at Hualapai -- not to be confused with Arizona's Hulalapai Lodge (which I've stayed at, btw) -- is a bar in western Las Vegas, near the corner of Desert Inn and Hualapai. It's aimed at locals, and doesn't get many tourists.

    They're now a subject of controversy, as a former employee has come forward with a very troubling accusation. It's being alleged that the owners force employees to sign a contract which makes them agree to pay back all money stolen or non-paid by customers. This means that dine-and-dashers and drink-and-dashers come out of the bartender's wallet. It also means that bartenders have to pay back the money stolen from the regsiter, in the event of an armed robbery!

    Indeed, the latter supposedly took place, and a former employee is alleging that he was forced to pay back almost $4000 stolen by a couple on an armed robbery spree last year.

    A man named Edward Parker posted this on a Facebook group called "Vegas Bartenders & Servers":

    Name:  hualapai1.jpg
Views: 598
Size:  224.6 KB
    Name:  hualapai2.jpg
Views: 570
Size:  467.5 KB
    Name:  hualapai3.jpg
Views: 534
Size:  112.6 KB


    So could this possibly be true? The guy posted a pretty authentic looking document above, showing the agreement to have $300 deducted from each paycheck until it was all paid back.

    I'm guessing the story is true, and the document shown above is authentic. Lodge at Hualapai hasn't commented on it yet, so the silence is definitely deafening. This is currently going viral in Las Vegas social media.

    Regarding the legality, refer to code NAC 608.160, from here:

    NAC 608.160  Withholding of amounts from wages due. (NRS 607.160, 608.110)

    1.  Without the written authorization of an employee, an employer may withhold from the wages due the employee:

    (a) Any amount required by law; and

    (b) Any employee contribution to a benefit program, such as health insurance or a pension plan, as permitted pursuant to NRS 608.110.

    2.  Except as otherwise provided in subsection 1, an employer may not deduct any amount from the wages due an employee unless:

    (a) The employer has a reasonable basis to believe that the employee is responsible for the amount being deducted by the employer;

    (b) The deduction is for a specific purpose, pay period and amount; and

    (c) The employee voluntarily authorizes the employer, in writing, to deduct the amount from the wages.

    3.  An employer may not use a blanket authorization that was made in advance by the employee to withhold any amount from the wages due the employee.
    Item #2 above is what could possibly apply here. If the employer has a "reasonable basis to believe the employee is responsible for the amount being deducted", then it can legally be deducted from the paycheck. To take a very simple example, let's say an employee throws a plate full of food on the floor out of rage, and the employee admits it wasn't an accident. Regardless of whether or not the employee is fired, the employer would have a right to deduct the cost of the food (and the broken plate) from the employee's paycheck.

    But what about this case? Can an employee really be held responsible for an armed robbery, or a dine-and-dasher?

    It appears that, generally, they cannot. The burden is on the employer to prove that either the employee was in on it, or it was due to major negligence on the employee's part which allowed the loss to occur. For example, if the employee behind the register leaves the cash register open and takes a break, it could be reasonable to deduct money stolen from the register from the employee's paycheck. Similarly, if a register comes up short, it can be reasonable to deduct that money from the employee's paycheck, provided the proper verification was done at the beginning of the shift that the money was counted properly.

    In this story, Mr. Parker alleges that he was held up at gunpoint by a couple on a long armed robbery spree, and that this couple was caught. Therefore, obviously he couldn't be blamed for this robbery occurring, as it happened to 8 other places before Lodge at Hualapai.

    It seems that, at the very least, the robbery story is true, because it was covered in the LVRJ.

    Why would Lodge at Hualapai possibly have such a contract in place? It's possible they kept getting burned by previous employees who either stole from the register or let friends eat there and walk out without paying, and then they played dumb. This might have been an overcorrection to the issue. It might also be that the owners are assholes. It might be both.

    In any case, it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
    Check out my poker forum, and weekly internet radio show at http://pokerfraudalert.com

  2. #2
    Also, the Lodge at Hualapai's Yelp is getting hammered by people leaving 1-star reviews over this.

    Yelp has deleted the reviews and disabled new reviews being posted, with a pop-up explaining that the business has been the subject of massive attention recently.

    Yelp isn't covering for them, but rather has a policy that they don't allow reviews which aren't based upon a direct customer experience.

    https://www.yelp.com/biz/the-lodge-a...apai-las-vegas
    Check out my poker forum, and weekly internet radio show at http://pokerfraudalert.com

  3. #3
    Here's the methy-looking couple arrested for the robberies:



    You're looking at Jack McLaughlin, age 42, and Daniela Tito, age 38.

    Article: https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/...eries-2219458/


    The LVRJ also is covering this present accusation by Mr. Parker, and the Lodge is refusing to answer any questions: https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/...bbery-2446567/
    Check out my poker forum, and weekly internet radio show at http://pokerfraudalert.com

  4. #4
    This story goes back about 34 years to 1987 when I was in Las Vegas for a few weeks. I had befriended someone that, in conversation, told me he was once asked by a las vegas bartender to rob him on graveyard shift. The bartender told him there would be few customers. To go the furthest away from the customers. To lean over the bar and whisper something to him. The bartender would go and get a brown paper bag with money in it give to him. The bartender told him that he would keep the money.

    So the guy did exactly as the bartender requested. There was $1500 in the bag. But the robbery was reported to be for $10,000.
    "More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ

  5. #5
    This reminds me a bit of what was happening on the individual health insurance market, pre-Obamacare.

    People were signing up for coverage only when they needed expensive treatment. They would lie about their preexisting condition, and then conveniently come down with it weeks after signing up for healthcare.

    The insurance companies got tired of this, but they overcorrected. Every time someone needed expensive treatment (say, cancer treatment), they'd go back into that person's history -- even dating back years -- and see if they could find the slightest "evidence" of lying about preexisting conditions. If they found anything, even something super flimsy, they'd deny coverage, even if that person dutifully paid for coverage for a decade and never had any previous big claims. At one point, investigators within the insurance companies were paid bonuses based upon how many big payments they could deny!

    So the insurance companies were battling a real problem, but they in turn were screwing innocent people in order to prevent it going forward.
    Check out my poker forum, and weekly internet radio show at http://pokerfraudalert.com

  6. #6
    Interesting story, I always like your writeups.

    I think both per the NRS quoted and equitable principles of contract what the bar is doing is unenforceable.

    But I also think as you suggested they probably originally had a good reason for adopting that rule (not that social media care about reasons). Maybe to avoid the scams Mickey mentioned.

  7. #7
    Let’s get John Taffer’s take on this.
    Keep your friends close, keep your drinks closer...

  8. #8
    Also, doesn’t this put the bar in liability. Bartender gets killed/wounded trying to stop a robbery (or guest gets killed) because HE’S liable for the cash based on company policy. The surviving family would have one good lawsuit. First defendant question…
    What training do you give your employees to prevent a robbery?
    Are anti-robbery procedures written down? On and on and on….
    Last edited by jpfromla; 09-24-2021 at 06:54 AM.
    Keep your friends close, keep your drinks closer...

  9. #9
    Keep your friends close, keep your drinks closer...

  10. #10
    I've always thought it was unfair to make waiters pay for walkouts when it is impossible for them to keep an eye on everyone for 100% of the time. And even if they could how is some little female waiter going to stop some big guy from walking. Waiters have to make trips to the kitchen to pick up food. A walkout will key on the waiter being in the back when they walk.
    "More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ

  11. #11
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    I've always thought it was unfair to make waiters pay for walkouts when it is impossible for them to keep an eye on everyone for 100% of the time. And even if they could how is some little female waiter going to stop some big guy from walking. Waiters have to make trips to the kitchen to pick up food. A walkout will key on the waiter being in the back when they walk.
    In all my years in the business I never did, nor would I ever have made a server or bartender responsible unless there was obviously collusion. Which in my case only happened a few times and always with an employee who was already a problem. A good video system was the best investment an owner could make. Well placed cameras made it easy to determine the individuals involved. In most cases someone knew the customer and would be able to contact them to notify them they accidentally forgot to pay after a few drinks and having a good time. And usually leave a larger tip than they normally would.

    In the very cases of outright intentional theft in the past decade it was easy to put a few still pictures on social media. You would be amazed how many “friends” people have that let you know who they were quickly and would even tag them. They would then show up to pay the bill rather quickly. As I was in a smaller suburban town and area I didn’t deal with many who came in with the intention of dining & dashing.

    In every case as an owner I treated it as the customer making a mistake as they were embarrassed enough and certainly didn’t want to lose a good long term customer.

    What happened, if true, at Hualapia is pathetic and is why some places give the industry as a whole a bad reputation as employers. And also why some places can’t keep employees, while bitching no one wants to work for them.

  12. #12
    BUMP

    This Edward Parker guy decided to sue The Lodge over this.

    Good.

    In fact, he filed a complaint with the Labor Commission, which awarded him $5528, but he declined it. I'm guessing his attorneys told him that he could get much more of them via litigation, and they're probably right.

    I have a feeling they're going to settle this one, for the avoidance of further publicity, among other things. It's also almost 100% they would lose this in court. Not only is this a terrible look for them, but they would have an extremely hard time proving that they had a reasonable belief Parker was in on the robbery, especially given that a number of other places were hit in the exact same fashion. Furthremore, they did not return Parker's money when the culprits were caught -- and when it became 100% clear they weren't affiliated with Parker at all.

    https://www.ktnv.com/13-investigates...y-stolen-money
    Check out my poker forum, and weekly internet radio show at http://pokerfraudalert.com

  13. #13
    Typical California mentality. Argue over money, sue, try to ruin others' lives and care nothing about it, then expect nothing else to happen.

    Total freaking idiots.

  14. #14
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Typical California mentality. Argue over money, sue, try to ruin others' lives and care nothing about it, then expect nothing else to happen.

    Total freaking idiots.
    Do you think the guy was in the wrong?

    How?
    Check out my poker forum, and weekly internet radio show at http://pokerfraudalert.com

  15. #15
    This is awful. This is even worse than the Set It Off movie where Frankie's Neighbor, Darnell and his Friends robbed the Bank she was at and she didn't even know they were planning to rob the Bank until he showed a gun at her and cussed at her to open the drawer. She even told him not to do it and she wanted nothing to do with it. He shot a Customer to force her hand to give him money. His other Friends robbed other Tellers. She was visibly scared and traumatize and interrogated by her Boss and a Police Cop and fired after admitting she and Darnell were Neighbors. They didn't even offer her any sympathy or counseling despite her being scared and traumatized. Her boss just fired her because he assumed her being Darnell's Neighbor meant she was in on the Robbery(That she had no prior knowledge of) Her Boss didn't force her to sign a Contract staring she'd agree to pay back the money stolen in the Robbery, he just fired her. The Company forcing Robbed Employees to pay back stolen money or get fired is beyond low.
    https://photos.app.goo.gl/Zk2WAFzDcrJ7pjNB7

    Take comfort in the fact that no one is actually backing up his wishes to have you permanantly banned.


    Smart is knowing a Tomato is a fruit.

    Wise is knowing a Tomato doesn't belong in a fruit salad.



    I am glad to get my full posting rights back! Thank you Dan!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Mount Charleston Lodge burned
    By mcap in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 09-20-2021, 12:58 PM
  2. Social media Vegas tip shaming back en vogue
    By Dan Druff in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: 08-26-2021, 06:07 PM
  3. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 07-15-2020, 10:09 AM
  4. The Wonders of Social Media
    By Alan Mendelson in forum Movies, Media, and Television
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-14-2013, 11:35 AM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-17-2012, 01:31 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •