My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2019-09-05 Liquor Adjudication Board Minutes
PublicDocuments
>
Liquor Control
>
Liquor Adjudication Board
>
Minutes
>
2019
>
2019-09-05 Liquor Adjudication Board Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/11/2020 4:10:41 PM
Creation date
1/8/2020 1:25:21 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
38
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Gonzalez: It appears that way, because the owner made the statement that he knew she didn't <br /> have her card and she was working there by 2:00. But, this is... <br /> Pawasarat: ...Do we know how long she's been working? <br /> Gonzalez: How long? No we don't know how long she was employed there totally. But, this is <br /> something that smaller proprietors run into quite often. If they're the owner of the business and <br /> they don't have a lot of staff, they to try to get staff; they have to weigh being able to open and <br /> stuff, so that's why it's important to note it in the report in that part. He made the choice to have <br /> her working for whatever reason. But he knew that she didn't have a card. But it's a challenge <br /> for the smaller businesses. Actually, it's a challenge for most retailers. <br /> Pawasarat: Business is challenging for everybody. <br /> Gonzalez: Yes, so that's been considered as well. But I will say, of the thirty times we've had <br /> this violation in the last five years, typically we impose the thousand and we suspend the range <br /> from $750 to $500, depending on the circumstances. <br /> Pawasarat: I think my concern would be a lot of times when we have people come up, there's <br /> some sort of extenuating circumstances; somebody has called in sick or someone just didn't <br /> show up or people just didn't realize somebody's card expired. Here, he's blatantly said 'Ya, I <br /> know.' <br /> Schoen: Actually, the record indicates that was her third day working there. He was working <br /> with her the first two days and this was the first day she was on her own. <br /> Pawasarat: Right, but he was completely aware she had no card. He himself, being a card <br /> holder, knows you can't run the place without somebody, so it's not like there were two people <br /> scheduled and one bombed out and the other one didn't have. He scheduled for that to happen, <br /> and that's where I'm conflicted with dropping the $500 just because it was blatant. <br /> Taniguchi: That's a good point. <br /> Giffin: Any other comments or questions? Mr. Smith? <br /> Smith: Yes, just a couple of comments. The cashier didn't check the ID, right? The report <br /> states... <br /> Pawasarat: How would she know? She never took the class. <br /> Gonzalez: ...did not check the ID again, yes. <br /> Smith: So that's different from the other cases, right? Was this person the only employee in the <br /> store? <br /> Gonzalez: At the time, yes. <br /> SEPTEMBER 5, 2019-LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MINUTES 26 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.