Ga. Bar Settles Dram Shop Case for $1 Million

Holt demand, spoliation sanction help put end to suit over fatal crash

Katheryn Hayes Tucker - Fulton County Daily Report - August 31, 2010

A Holt demand and a spoliation sanction from Cobb County State Court Chief Judge Toby B. Prodgers were the key ingredients in the $1 million settlement of a wrongful death case against The Sports Grill for serving alcohol to a customer who had a fatal crash on the way home.

The drama continued into the final hour before the settlement deadline set by plaintiffs attorneys James L. Creasy III of Gillis & Creasy and Lloyd N. Bell of Bell & Mulholland, who were fielding calls on their cell phones from their cars and offices until nearly noon on July 15, when Statewide Insurance Co., acting through RCA Insurance, wrote the check rather than risk exceeding the $1 million policy liability limit if the case had gone to trial.

"Frankly, I wish they hadn't settled," said Creasy, the lead plaintiffs attorney. "I'd like to have tried the case."

Creasy had made Holt demands, a demand for settlement of the full amount of available liability insurance, unsuccessfully twice before during nearly two years working on the case. The reason the tactic worked the third time was Prodgers' order granting their motion for spoliation sanctions and striking much of the defendant's evidence. Before Prodgers' order, the defense had served the plaintiff with a $50,000 order of judgment, according to Creasy.

"That was a remarkable ruling," said Brad C. Kaplan of Kaplan & Seifter, who represents the bar owner, Winston's Food & Spirits, but was not involved in the litigation. "It was very unusual." The defense attorney in the case, J. Robb Cruser of Cruser & Mitchell, declined comment and deferred to Kaplan.

Kaplan said the bar owner was "extremely disappointed" with Prodgers' order, which created a practical problem of not being able to present evidence. The company had never faced a dram shop case during 25 years in business, according to Kaplan, who said the owner brought him in near the conclusion of the litigation. "My role was to talk to the insurance company and ask them to do the right thing," Kaplan said.

The issue in the judge's order was four hours of videotape from the night in October 2008 when William Paul Davis IV, now 28, was drinking at The Sports Grill in Austell before he left and crashed into the car driven by Cuneyt Erturk, who was on his way home from work. Erturk was killed. His widow, Trivilla Ross Erturk, is the plaintiff in the case against Davis and The Sports Grill.

The bar recorded over most of the tape, producing only a few "seconds or minutes" according to the judge's order, showing Davis entering and leaving. The order also said the bar destroyed the tabs for two patrons drinking with Davis and that night's "spill sheets," lists showing free drinks given out by bartenders.

"The testimony given by the employees of the Sports Grill would indicate that defendant Davis consumed a certain amount of alcohol during the time he was on the premises, that he was not noticeably intoxicated, and that they had no reason to believe that he would soon be driving," Prodgers said in his May 10 order following a hearing in April. "However, the videos which existed at one time would have given an objective, impartial view of Davis during the entirety of the four hour period he was at the premises and not just the few minutes or seconds which the Sports Grill saved." He called the bar employees' testimony "self-serving."

Although the police did not initially demand the entire four hours of video, Prodgers said the spoliation was "not excusable."

"With respect to the sanctions to be imposed for such spoliation, it is particularly disturbing that the Sports Bar would permit the destruction of the subject evidence after it became aware that a patron to whom it had been serving alcohol was involved in a fatal crash after leaving its premises," Prodgers' order said. "The court hereby strikes those portions of its pleadings whereby it denied that it served alcohol to defendant Davis while he was in a state of noticeable intoxication knowing that he would soon be driving." Those allegations, the judge said, are "deemed admitted."

Bell and Creasy said they believe part of the reason the judge came down as hard as he did on The Sports Grill was the evidence in the part of the video that was played in court during the motion hearing. Over defense objections, they said, they played video showing what happened in the bar after Davis left.

The bartender had just testified that he never "free pours" drinks -- a flashy practice that may please patrons and earn tips as shown in the movie "Cocktail" but can lead to overserving alcohol, they said. In the video made just after Davis left, that same bartender could be seen free pouring drinks. In free pouring, a bartender holds a liquor bottle high and streams it into a glass, rather than measuring it. Creasy and Bell said it also helped their case that Davis admitted in his testimony exactly how much he had to drink in the bar that night: two Long Island iced teas -- which typically contain five kinds of liquor -- and six 16-ounce beers.

Davis refused alcohol tests the night of the accident, but witnesses smelled alcohol on his breath, according to Creasy. Davis faces charges of DUI and vehicular homicide.The bar still contends it was not liable for Davis' actions, Kaplan said. "A high bar has been set for plaintiffs in dram shop cases," he said. He also said "free pouring is not necessarily an indication of overserving." But once Prodgers ruled on the spoliation motion, Kaplan said, the defense had "a practical problem" of not being able to present evidence. "They did not believe they were liable, but based on the legal circumstances, they did what was correct," Kaplan said of the defense. And, he added, "The plaintiff's lawyers did a good job. The case is Trivilla Ross Erturk v. William Paul Davis Jr., Suzanne G. Davis, the Sports Grill a/k/a Winston's Food and Spirits, No. 2009A-1617-6 in Cobb County State Court.

Michael Zenner - CEO      
Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint PLLC
PI Lic. 1597616
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811

© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2010

Finally, Some Solutions to Control Your Banquet Bars… and Increase Sales!

Posted by Five Diamond Hospitality

January 10th, 2008

We often gets calls from hotels whose banquet bars are out of control. Whether the liquor pour cost is high, the employees are stealing cash or clients have complained about being overcharged on a host bar, the main culprit is usually a poor system for recording sales.

While our hotels all have the most advanced property management systems at the front desk and the most advanced point of sales systems in our restaurants and bars, our banquet bars have cheap cash registers purchased from Costco! Or worse yet, the old adding machine tape next to the cash drawer!

Finally, technology has caught up with the demand. Most hotels use the MICROS 3700 or the MICROS 9700 point of sale system in their restaurant and bars. Now it is very easy to add on an affordable, portable terminal and put in the same controls in your banquet bar as you have in your restaurant bar. The terminal runs on wireless internet and connects to your existing point of sales system so it is ultra portable. All that it needs is power. Depending on the size of your hotel’s banquet space, most hotels can get by with only one or two terminals.

How will adding a point of sales system to your banquet bar increase sales?

1. Your hotel will now be able to accept credit cards at a banquet event. People tend to spend much more money at a place (especially a bar) when using a credit card.

2. Many people at a business event will not purchase drinks unless they can use a company credit card and get a receipt. If you have ever attended an HFTP event, you have been in line behind a group of Controllers that want to pay with a company credit card and need a receipt for the expense report!

3. You will greatly reduce your risk of employee theft. You may be losing 20 percent of your revenues to theft right now. With a POS, the bartenders will have to ring up each item and present a receipt. More of the hotel’s money will make it into the register instead of ‘accidentally’ going into the tip jar.

If you have installed a Point of Sales System in the last few years or are planning to install one in the future, be sure to consider incorporating a banquet bar terminal. It will pay for itself in no time!

Michael Zenner - CEO      
Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint PLLC
PI Lic. 1597616
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811

© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2010

Bartender Summary

There were three Bartenders on Duty when the Agent arrived:

• Bartender A:  Female, long blonde hair not pulled back wearing a t-shirt and blue jeans.

• Bartender B:  Male, approximately 6’2” tall with brown hair wearing a baseball cap.

• Bartender C:  Male, approximately 5’10” tall wearing a Phoenix Suns t-shirt and appeared to either be the Manager on Duty or just helping out with the trivia.

The Agent arrived and took a seat at the Bar.  The guests were quickly greeted by Bartender B who placed cocktail napkins down on the bar in front of each guest and asked what they would like to drink.  The drinks were produced quickly and the guests paid in cash.  Immediate movement occurred to the PosiTouch System and both beverages were rung in the POS.  Bartender B returned to the guests and delivered two menus along with the Happy Hour menu – and explained the Happy Hour specials.  No mention of the specials on the Menu Board our front were made nor was a list of those specials given to the guests. 

Bartender B was very friendly and personable and immediately struck up a conversation with the guests.  All three Bartenders appeared to have a great rapport with the regular guests seated at the Bar.  The Bartenders were also servicing the Game Room as well as the Dining Room.  Bar back/Busser and a Line cook were also noted behind the bar, which could be cause for concern. 

The Agent and her Associate watched as many draft beers were being poured.  Much overflow is going down the drain for no reason but habit.  The glasses are being tilted and the foam running into the drain for long periods of time.  A big reason for cost issues…the Agent would estimate 10-12 beers per keg are being lost, easily. 

TRAIN YOUR STAFF THE PROPER POURING PRACTICES — The dispensing spigot should never come in contact with the beer in the glass. To prevent the foamy head from dissipating quickly, glasses must be absolutely free of any dirt, grease, oil, or soapy film.

Draft beer should be poured directly into a glass and never allowed to run first. Traditionally, draft beer is served with a head of approximately 3/4 to 1 inch. Tilting the glass and letting the flow of draft beer slope off the inside of the glass will inhibit the amount of head that develops. When the glass is half-full, the beer should be allowed to pour directly into the center of the glass. This technique will produce the appropriate amount of foamy head. When serving draft beer in a frosted or frozen glass, this will likely result in the foamy head being rapidly dissipated.

The Agent also noted that the ice scoop was used most of the time except with the plastic pitchers which were scooped directly into the ice.  Plastic pieces could still break off in the ice and are cause for concern.  This is also an AZ Helath Code Violation.

The Agent also noted a firm 4 count being poured (1 ½ oz).  The Agent did note two 5 count pours for a male guests seated at the bar by Bartender B but all other times a 4 count was observed.

Two drinks were prepared for two guests seated at a booth on the rocks.  The drinks were suppose to be made up according to the guests.  Bartender B returned to the Bar, poured the drinks into a rocks glass, leaving two additional shots were left over.  One was given to Bartenders B’s boyfriend the other to the Agent.

Bartender C appeared to be ending his shift as he made comment to the guests only one and a half hours and he “was out of there.”  He appeared to be helping with the trivia, but very close to the beginning he went behind the bar, poured his own beer, and then went and sat next to a guest at the bar.  This is against AZ Liquor Laws.  The Agent also did not see anything rung in to the register as a comp either.  If shift drinks are allowed at this establishment, they should still be rung into the register for accounting purposes and then promo’d off to staff drink at the end of the night.

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

12. For a licensee, when engaged in waiting on or serving customers, to consume spirituous liquor or for a licensee or on-duty employee to be on or about the licensed premises while in an intoxicated or disorderly condition.

Much drink grouping was going on with Bartender A and B, as many drinks were delivered and not rung in immediately.  More so, with the female Bartender.  When bartenders do not go to the register after preparing drinks and group several orders together, it’s very cumbersome to adequately report theft issues; therefore, this behavior, in itself, should be highly discouraged by management.

Bartender B also served two 4 count shots to one male patron along with a beer that he had in front of him.  This far exceeds legal limits. 

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

23. For an on-sale retailer or employee to conduct drinking contests, to sell or deliver to a person an unlimited number of spirituous liquor beverages during any set period of time for a fixed price, to deliver more than thirty-two ounces of beer, one liter of wine or four ounces of distilled spirits in any spirituous liquor drink to one person at one time for that person's consumption or to advertise any practice prohibited by this paragraph.

Also, Bartender B did not have her long blonde hair pulled back.  Since she is serving food, this would also be a violation.  It does go further than that, as she was combing her hair behind the bar, and eating off a male guests plate from behind the bar.

The Agent also observed a Caucasian male, approximately 5’9” tall who may have been a barback or busser.  He was seen fingerbussing shot glasses.  Especially with the Swine flu epidemic, this is cause for concern.  An employees fingers should never be on the top half of the glass and especially inside.  This is cause for contamination and germs can easily be transferred from a dirty glass onto clean glassware, silverware or plateware.  A good rule of thumb is the top half belongs to the guest, and the bottom to the service staff.  This will eliminate cross-contamination.

A new round was ordered and the drink was brought quickly by Bartender A.  Immediate movement was made to the POS and food again was offered.  Good job.

A third round was ordered, and the guests were only charged for one beverage.  The guests paid cash.  Alhtough, Bartender B moved to the POS no keystrokes were seen.  One drink was given away for free (Non-alcoholic worth noting) and it is of the Agent’s opinion that the beverage that was paid for was not rung in. 

Although the drawer pull came out even, it is the Agent’s strong opinion that at some point those monies were transferred out and into the tip jar. 

A pole display off of the POSitouch system may be a way to deter a Bartender from building the drawer.  This allows the guests to see what is rung in, and anyone else for that matter.  The amount owed would show on the pole display making it much more difficult for Bartenders to steal.  Watch around the POS system for some sort of abacus system: for coins (pennies, nickels, dimes), toothpicks, etc that could be stored in a container that will mark dollars that the drawer has been built.  That is how some bartenders keep track of what to remove at a later safer date, usually periodically through the evening. Along those lines, although we never observed this action, bartenders should be restricted from ever changing out tips from their tip jar. This is the method they use to effectively launder stolen money from the register and back into the tip jar i.e. If the register has $40 in stolen money inside, the bartender counts out twenty $1 bills and exchanges them for three $20 bills.

Also, because of the grouping of drinks, it is very difficult to know if the drinks all ready delivered were eventually rung into the register.  It could be an integrity issue; however, even some of the best Bartenders will forget to ring in drinks too. The Agent would recommend that Management have dupes print out for cash transactions and the receipt given to the guest.  This is why you see most fast food restaurants offer customers their meals for free if they are not given a receipt.  In a cash environment, they want to make sure the people producing the food, and taking cash are being honest.  Having a receipt given to each guest ensures all items that were paid for are rung in immediately – make a drink, ring a drink.  Also, guest with tabs should have the tab folded in front of them in the rail or in a shot glass.  If grouping is done, then Management and spotters know when the new dupe is place in front of the guest that the Bartender did return to ring the item in and a new check has been printed.

The Associate requested menus from Bartender B.  Bartender B gave the menus to the guests. Between Bartender B handling the Trivia Game and going around the other side of the Bar to first snuggle with a male patron, and then leaving the establishment to go kiss the male good-bye, the Agent and Associate waited for 20 minutes with their menus pushed aside to place their order.

Michael Zenner - CEO  
Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.com
bartheft.com  (blog)

Hospitality Checkpoint PLLC
PI Lic. 1597616
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811

© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2010

Bartender Summary                                                       

The following bartenders were observed the evening of the sixth:

1. Bartender 1: Latina Female, 5'7", medium build, blonde hair past the shoulders pulled back in a ponytail, black XxxxxX tank top, black choker with transparent rose at front
2. Bartender 2: Latino Male, 5-9, medium build, textured and gelled black hair and goatee, white tee shirt, black vest, upper arm tattoos
3. Bartender 3:  Latina Female, 5'6", medium build, dark hair past the shoulders, black XxxxxX tank top, large hoop earrings
4. Bartender 4:  Latina Female, 5'7", medium build, dark hair past the shoulders with bangs, black XxxxxX tank top under black cable-knit sweater, hoop earrings

The agent entered the bar and was very promptly greeted by Bartender 1.  She immediately took drink orders and presented drinks on cocktail napkins. 

After this first greeting, the agent never observed any bartender actively making an effort to solicit drink orders, nor asking if patrons wanted refills or additional drinks. This was surprising and disconcerting. Customers had to get their attention, and although it was easy enough to flag one down sales for the house and tips for bartenders would likely be improved by a bit more suggestive sales.

Nevertheless, the bartenders were very responsive and prepared drinks quickly, but the music was so loud it was hard to demonstrate friendliness or personality. 

All bartenders did an excellent job of using cocktail napkins for each drink. 

Some gaps were apparent in bartenders' proclivity to upsell: customers that asked for neat liquors or water without specifying a brand or bottled received a premium product without being asked, but none of the bartenders tried to up-sell the liquor in mixed drinks. 

Only Bartender 3 had a consistent 4-count pour (1 ½ oz).  The others were all extremely variable, with all varying between 6-count and eight count pours for all other drinks.  This means that a full third to half of the average liquor pour is not only being given away for free, it is also leading to patrons being served more than they anticipate, and actively discouraging them from ordering additional rounds, as they essentially get a free drink for every two. 

In one instance, at 22:34, a Bartender one was seen to pour an 8-count of Bombay sapphire, then notice that there was less than half an inch of liquor in the bottle and pour the last of it into the glass.  This means that she poured roughly three times the standard amount into one drink. 

Some small degree of variability in pours is understandable at busy times, but it is the agent's opinion that these should be serious red flags. Further, the agent suggests the immediate implementation of pour control measures such as blind pour-testing and scrupulous inventory compared against Aloha sales reports, and possibly a pour control system such as Posi-pour.  Posi-pour spouts are available in a number of sizes.

Please be advised that the one draw back of these spouts is that bartenders learn to lean or bounce the bottle for additional alcohol.

Pour testing on a reglar basis is usually the most effective means of control.

Pour Check™  $ 19.95 

The Pour Check™ is an accurate, inexpensive tool that will help perfect the skill of free pouring. The Pour Check™ separates into 2 high quality pieces of plastic, the funnel and the measuring tube. It measures in both US Ounces and Milliliters. The Pour Check™ is an all-in-one tool that saves time while measuring the initial pour. Your purchase includes a set of 6 Pour Check Units.

Click to watch the 3 Minute Training Demonstration.

http://www.barproducts.com/media/pourcheck.php

The establishment could make good use of larger sized pour spouts since many wide-mouthed bottles had no spouts and their pours tended to be even more variable still.  In one case, the agent observed Bartender 2 pouring more than four ounces of liquor from such a bottle. That is a ridiculous amount of alcohol.

 Wider Free Pour Spout

Medium flow, hard plastic free pour spout with oversized red cork to fit Patron bottles and most half-gallon and 1.75 liter bottles.

http://www.alcoholcontrols.com/pameflfrposp.html

Other irregularities include Bartenders 2 and 4 both a glass in order to scoop ice, a practice that can lead to serious injury and liability for the establishment in the event of a patron swallowing small glass chipped off in the ice well.

Bartender 2 was also observed giving an unrung yellow drink in a Collins glass to a man photographing patrons (Latino Male, 5'6", stocky build, button-down shirt and slacks), who was also allowed behind the bar to take photos of patrons.  Drink was not recorded which Agent deems a theft issue.

Additionally, another man (Latino, 5'10", muscular build, dark flat-topped fade, Grey suit with black tee shirt) was allowed to come behind the bar three times over the course of the night, and walked away each times with bottles of soft drinks.  The agent suspects that the latter individual is in a position of authority at the establishment, but this is all the more reason why he would do well to either ring in his drinks as comps or ask an employee to do so for the sake of inventory controls. Agent would strongly suggest that management make it policy that no beverages whatsoever ever leave the bar without being accounted for.

The standard ordering process of the cocktail server (Latina female, blonde hair past the shoulders, black XxxxxX tank top and black pants) was similarly fraught with problems, as she would walk behind the bar to ring in her orders, then ask the bartenders to prepare the drinks every time. 

This system allows for the cocktail server to either misreport what she has rung in, or to just not ring anything in at all, leaving her free to pocket any cash.  Compared to this additional opportunity for employee fraud and theft, it would be relatively inexpensive and easy to install one more POS outside of the bar that would print to a new printer so that all drinks would be recorded. Alternatively, the low-tech solution would be for her to ask the bartenders to ring in and make the drinks, but this still would not remove the possibility of a cocktailer and bartender working together in collusion to defraud the establishment. 

In sum, and in the Agent’s opinion, this is a major breech in management’s security system and is a gapping hole for theft opportunity. 

Finally, all bartenders were making change from stacks of bills on top of their drawers that then eventually went into the tip boxes.  Agent was absolutely astounded by this practice. It is likely that this was just a practice to avoid having to make change from tips later, but this presents a huge opportunity to store un-rung cash for one's self on the drawer, or even to just waste time and make honest mistakes, as the number of times the money is counted and handled increases exponentially with this method.

In particular, Bartender 4 might have taken advantage of this system to pad her tips dishonestly, as she was observed at 22:50 and 23:27 ringing in cash orders very quickly in such a way that the total was not displayed on screen afterward as is usually the case.  Immediately afterward, she would make change from her pile of bills on top of the drawer, dealing with the customer as usual.  Since no total was displayed, the agent suspects she might have been deleting the orders immediately after having seen the prices but before sending the order, but it was observed only  twice and was done too quickly to say with certainty exactly what was done.  

This behavior in the bartenders’ process development of ringing drinks should be halted immediately. Agent cannot stress this enough. Agent cannot substantiate these numerous theft occurrences because of the aforementioned clearing of the screen; however, it is HIGHLY suspect and in the Agent’s opinion, the employees are exploiting this flaw in the system to steal, and probably great amounts of revenue too.

Additionally, management should instruct bartenders to not use an arm, head or any type of the body to obscure the screen, and additionally, be instructed that the practice of immediately “clearing” the screen will be help with immediate suspicion of theft.

Other than these instances, all bartenders recorded all drinks immediately after service and kept the register drawer closed after each transaction and did charge the appropriate amounts for drinks.  Generally, there were clearly many opportunities for theft, some of which the bartenders were taking advantage of, whether knowingly or not.

The bar top and back bar were kept generally clean, and the barback (Latino male, 5'8" closely cropped dark hair and narrow full beard) did an excellent job of moving with a sense of urgency and staying on top of his duties, but often when the bar staff was busy a few bottles would be out of place on the back bar.  Empty glassware and used napkins were cleared very quickly.  All bartenders were drinking unidentifiable drinks in glasses with ice behind bar, but no eating was observed.  Otherwise, all bartenders appeared hygienic and professional.

Bartenders 3 and 4 were seen to ignore the bar for four minutes at a time while texting nonstop from 22:40-22:44 and 22:34-22:38 respectively. 

All liquor laws were obeyed to the fullest with no over-serving or serving of uncarded patrons observed.

Michael Zenner - CEO  
Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint PLLC
PI Lic. 1597616
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811

© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2010

Bartender Summary

• Bartender 1: Caucasian male with short brown hair. He had a slender build and wore a black button up shirt. He was identified as Xxxxxx.

Xxxxxx was very friendly and personable. He welcomed patrons as they approached his bar, and chatted with near by patrons during down times. He was located at the small bar near the patio, and next to the dance floor. He did not introduce himself when addressing the agent.

The agent approached Xxxxxx’s bar and was immediately greeted by him. He asked the agent for a drink order. He took the agent’s drink order, and quickly prepared the drinks. He served the drinks on the bar’s spill mats without napkins. He then advised the agent of the cost. After the agent asked to open a tab, Xxxxxx asked for a credit card. He started the tab on the POS and kept the card.

The agent proceeded to order the same drinks from all of the service staff in the establishment in order to see if there was a pattern in the amount charged for the drinks.

The agent found that all bar staff charged the same amount for the drinks they served whether the agent was paying with a credit card or with cash.

At the end of the agent’s evaluation with Xxxxxx, the tab was closed quickly and reflected the correct drink orders. Xxxxxx did not present his check in a black check presenter. Rather, he left the receipt on the bar top with a pen placed on it. The agent did not witness Xxxxxx give away any drinks, or do any over pours.

However, the agent was informed by a server that Xxxxxx would “hook up” people who he liked. In fact, the server who informed the agent of this took the agent’s order and returned with a double of the drink that was ordered. She attributed the stronger drink to Xxxxxx, and said the agent should get the rest of the drinks from him.

The agent tried to receive a similar “hook up” later on. Xxxxxx was not as generous in his pour to the agent as he was to the server.

• Bartender 2: Caucasian male with a bald head and muscular build. He had a tribal tattoo on his right arm. His name tag identified him as Xxxxxx.

Xxxxxx was pretty friendly to the patrons he served. The agent observed him servicing patrons with a positive demeanor and a professional urgency. He would serve drinks and then immediately ring them into the POS system and collect payment.

Xxxxxx was busy when the agent approached the bar, but still made eye contact with the agent within 30 seconds. He finished collecting payment for the drink he had just served, and proceeded to service the agent.

He asked the agent for a drink order. He then attempted to up sell the drink to a premium liquor.  He served the drink on the bar using cocktail napkins, then announced the cost of the drink order. He collected payment and made change appropriately, and accurately.

Xxxxxx did not give away any drinks during the evaluation period. Likewise, Xxxxxx input every drink order that he served into the POS and collected payment or credit card. The agent was pleased by his work ethic, demeanor, and honesty during the evaluation.

Xxxxxx was very good about using a jigger to measure his pour. At no time did the agent see him free pour drinks, or over pour drinks. Drink orders were an appropriate size, and always garnished properly and placed on cocktail napkins.

• Bartender 3: Caucasian female with no name tag. She had brown hair that she wore in a pony tail, and hoop earrings.

The agent observed that bartender 3 could frequently free pour her drinks, and then over pour many of them. Additionally, her work demeanor seemed rushed and disorganized. She poured drinks and served them to patrons who placed their empty glassware on the bar. She collected payment and input the orders into the POS and then moved on to a new drink order without removing the nearby empty glassware from the bar. As a result the area around her was often filled with dirty glasses and napkins on the bar.

The agent did not witness this bartender giving away any drinks during the evaluation period. All of her drinks were served in the appropriate glass sizes. However, as mentioned earlier, the bartender’s pours were not consistent and often heavy.

• Bartender 4: Caucasian male with a thicker build. He was identified as Xxxxxx.

Xxxxxx was very abrasive and a little rude. At one point, the agent observed Xxxxxx very sternly tell a patron that happy hour had ended, thus beers now cost more. The agent believes that Xxxxxx rubbed a lot of patrons the wrong way and seemed angry.

Xxxxxx did use cocktail napkins, and cleaned the bar around him when serving drinks

The agent also observed that Xxxxxx would often group ring in his orders. He would take and server at least two orders before ringing in all of the orders into the POS. The agent believes that the practice of group ring ins to be very dangerous as there is a tendency to make mistakes, or mis-rings when the bartender gets overwhelmed. He may very well be using this technique to mask bar theft; however, it cannot be substantiated.

Agent recommends that management instruct bartenders that this method or ringing is strictly prohibited and any further occurrences will be viewed as a theft occurrence.

Michael Zenner - CEO  
         
Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint PLLC
PI Lic. 1597616
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811

© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2010

Bartender Summary:

1.      Bartender 1:  Caucasian female, short dark hair, tattoos on arms

2.      Bartender 2:  Caucasian male, short hair, glasses

The agent approached the bar top and was greeted by Bartender 1 within one minute.  Bartender 1 was not friendly, did not smile, and asked the agent and associate what we would like to drink in a very hurried manner.  The agent and associate ordered two drinks and Bartender 1 quickly fulfilled the drink order and then stated the amount owed by memory.  The agent provided Bartender 1 with a cash bill, and Bartender 1 moved to the cash register and was seen entering in the amount stated and then Bartender 1 returned back to the agent with the correct amount of change.  Each interaction with Bartender 1 went similarly, and each time she seemed less and less friendly. 

Each time, Bartender 1 did record the transactions into the cash register.  Two drinks were ordered through Bartender 2, and he was quiet but seemed friendlier than Bartender 1.  Bartender 2 handled the transactions similar to Bartender 1, in that he would deliver the drinks; verbally state the amount owed, and then register the cash provided into the cash register. 

The agent did observe a few questionable interactions with patrons that the bartenders apparently knew on a personal level. 

·        At 11:35pm the agent observed two male patrons at the bar top get served two beers by Bartender 1, and the agent did not see Bartender 1 collect any cash from these patrons.  Bartender 1 communicated with these patrons on a very familiar level and seemed to know them on a personal basis.  No transaction was made.

·        Another group of patrons, a larger group of six or more people, appeared to be well known by both bartenders.  The agent observed multiple instances in which this group of patrons was served drinks but the agent did not observe these drinks recorded into the cash register.  Moreover, the agent did notice rather large tips being provided to the bartenders from this group of patrons – just not register transactions. 

This same large group of patrons caused quite a spectacle within the establishment, as they were extremely intoxicated. 

At one point, a male patron from that group removed his shirt and proceeded to dance around the establishment, finally ending up rolling around shirtless on one of the pool tables.  This male patron continued to be served alcohol, and was seen posing for pictures with many of his friends. 

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

14. For a licensee or other person to serve, sell or furnish spirituous liquor to a disorderly or obviously intoxicated person, or for a licensee or employee of the licensee to allow or permit a disorderly or obviously intoxicated person to come into or remain on or about the premises, except that a licensee or an employee of the licensee may allow an obviously intoxicated person to remain on the premises for a period of time of not to exceed thirty minutes after the state of obvious intoxication is known or should be known to the licensee in order that a nonintoxicated person may transport the obviously intoxicated person from the premises. For purposes of this section, "obviously intoxicated" means inebriated to the extent that a person's physical faculties are substantially impaired and the impairment is shown by significantly uncoordinated physical action or significant physical dysfunction that would have been obvious to a reasonable person.

Bartender 2 was observed smoking cigarettes outside the front entrance on a few occasions, and he was not seen washing his hands after smoking at any time.    

Michael Zenner - CEO  
Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint PLLC
PI Lic. 1597616
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811

© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2010

Bartender Addendum:

Two small incidences happened during the agents visit to the Red Bar that may be worth mentioning. 

The outside bouncer came in to the bar complaining to Xxxxx about not feeling well.  I believe he said he had a sore throat.  Xxxxx whipped up a concoction for him in a small shot type of glass.  He was using simple ingredients in which did not make the agent suspicious, until the agent overheard Xxxxx telling the bouncer that there was some  alcohol in the drink.  Xxxxx did not ring this drink into the computer in any way, not even under a comp tab.  This is giving away alcohol, as well as the bouncer having alcohol on the job.

ADLLC VIOLATION

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3
4-244. Unlawful acts
12. For a licensee, when engaged in waiting on or serving customers, to consume spirituous liquor or for a licensee or on-duty employee to be on or about the licensed premises while in an intoxicated or disorderly condition.

The second incident happened at 11:18pm.  A small group of people came up to the bar, and seemed to be familiar with the bartenders.  They placed an order with the bartender for three drinks.  Xxxxx did not accept cash, did not take a room key and did not take any form of payment.  Xxxxx went to the register and typed a few things in, however he was servicing multiple guests at this time, and could have been entering in the other orders.  The agent did not have a clear view of the screen to see what he specifically was inputting.  The patron next to the agent spilled a drink, breaking the glass, and needed to order a new one.  This drink the guest paid cash for; this order was put in to the POS where it is unclear if the other was ever actually entered.

The third incident happened at 11:25pm.  Two men approached the bar; they were familiar with the bartenders, and had a tab open using an AmXxxxxan Express Credit card.  They ordered one more round of drinks and then asked to close out the tab.  While Bartender 2 went to grab the credit card for the tab, and the receipt, Xxxxx took a minute and introduced himself to the guests.  Bartender 2 handed the gentleman his credit card and receipt, and said “Xxxxx, we’ll take care of this one for you; because we’re silly like that.”  Xxxxx said ok, and then grabbed a $10 bill and threw it on the table for tip.  Bartender 2 threw it back.  They settled on four one dollar bills.  The agent did not see either bartender call a manager over to comp a check. 

Michael Zenner - CEO  
         
Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint PLLC
PI Lic. 1597616
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811

© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2010

Bartender Summary:

Note:  Agent was told by a member of security that the establishment has seven bars.  During the two hour period, Agent was only able to visit five of the seven bars.  The following evaluations have been separated by bar.  Please note the general description of the bar as a reference.

Bar 1:  Xxxxxxxxxxxx of the pool tables

• Bartender A:  Xxxxx female, approximately 5’5” tall, thin build, long, straight, highlighted hair (Xxxxx on Xxxxx)

• Bartender B:  Xxxxx female, approximately 5’4” tall, stocky build, very curly Xxxxx hair

Name on Agent’s receipt reads “Xxxxx”

Agent and associates approached Bar 1 at 10:50PM.  The bar was observed to be very busy in an objective viewpoint.  Agent was requested to report speed/politeness of staff. Bartender A made eye contact with us within two minutes.  Bartender A elicited a drink order from the Agent over the din. Service was reported to be fast.  Bartender A did not make any connection with the Agent. Service is reported to be impolite.

Bartender A poured a solid 6-count highball.  Agent is not privy to the facilities standardized official pour count; therefore, will as a general rule, default to the national  standard highball contains about 1.5-ounces of liquor(4-count = 1.5 oz.). From this 4 count standard a 6-count highball is objectively flagged as an over pour. 

Bartender A served the drinks, sans beverage napkins (Agent cannot attest if this is a standard at this location or not, but reports it as such), and then asked Agent if they would like to start a tab or pay cash.  Agent handed over a credit card and asked Bartender A to go ahead and close it out.  Bartender A moved to the POS system. Agent noted Bartender A accounted for all drinks ordered accurately.

Bartender B also pours a 6-count highball. 

Bartender B was observed handling cash ethically, and counting change back accurately for guests.

Agent and associates sat at this bar for approximately 30 minutes observing operations.  At approximately 11PM, Bartender A was observed preparing three, pink-colored shots for customers at the end of the bar.  Bartender A personally consumed one of the alcohol shots. Agent did not observe manager approval. Bartender A failed to ring up the shots on the POS or account for the liquor order in any matter apparent to Agent.

At 11:15PM, Bartender A greeted two male patrons. It was objectively obvious to Agent that Bar A was acquainted with the patrons. The male patrons ordered 4 bottled beers, but Agent observed Bartender A charge for only two beers.  Agent audibly heard Bartender A state that the other two beers “are on me.” 

Bar 2:  Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx of the pool tables, characterized by a Xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx

• Bartender C:  Xxxxx male, approximately 5’7” tall, with short, xxxx-xxxx hair under a ball cap; he has a goatee

• Bartender D:  Xxxxx female, approximately 5’8” tall, shoulder-length Xxxxx hair

Name on Agent’s receipt reads “Xxxxx”

Agent and associates took seats at Bar 2 at approximately 11:20PM.  This bar was observed to be very busy.  When we arrived, Bartender C was busy preparing approximately 15 shooters for a group of guests around the bar, while Bartender D took drink orders from the other guests around the bar. 

We waited approximately five minutes for service.

Bartender C waited on us as soon as he was available.  He was friendly and welcoming.  Agent would classify this as “polite” as instructed by management.

Drinks were prepared quickly and served without beverage napkins. 

Bartender C prepares highballs with a 6-count pour.  (4-count= 1.5 oz.) 

Bartender C offered to start a tab for us, but Agent instead presented a credit card and asked for the tab to be closed out.  Bartender C presented Agent with receipts. He did not have a pen when presenting bill. One was presented <1 minute later. 

Agent and associates sat at Bar 2 for approximately 50 minutes.  At approximately midnight, Agent observed as Bartender D prepared Rumplemintz shots for her bar guests.  Once prepared and served, Bartender D had two shots left over for herself and for another male employee behind the bar. The two consumed the shots and then continued working. Bartender A failed to ring up the shots on the POS or account for the liquor order in any matter apparent to Agent.

(Agent believed this man may have been a barback, but later he was observed answering a question for a bartender that seemed to be about the POS system.  Thus, he may have been the manager and therefore approved of the employee alcohol consumption.  He is a Xxxxx male, approximately 5’9” tall, with light Xxxxx hair under his ball cap.  His face was scruffy, but without full facial hair.) 

Bartender D also serves a solid 6-count highball.

Agent observed a plastic cup on the backbar filled with a dark Xxxxx liquid.  Agent did not see which bartender was drinking this drink and also cannot confirm that it was alcohol based.

Bar 3:  Second Floor, Left side when facing the rear of the building (larger than the bar on the right side)

• Bartender E:  Xxxxx male, approximately 5’7” tall; he has Xxxxx, wavy hair under a ball cap; his face was scruffy without the presence of full facial hair

Agent and associates approached Bar 3 at 12:15PM. Every stool at the bar was taken and there was a row of guests behind the bar stools waiting to be served.  Bartender E was working alone and was observed NOT to be “fast” as instructed to observe by management. 

On several occasions, Bartender E was observed to be objectively confused and stare at his liquor display for several minutes. 

Agent noted that Bartender E groups orders to ring in the POS. 

Agent waited for service at Bar 3 for 20 minutes without service or eye contact from Bartender E.  Due to time constraints and the number of bars still needing visits, Agent made a professional judgment call to move on without further observing Bartender E. 

Bar 4:  Second Level, Right side when facing the rear of the building

• Bartender F:  Xxxxx female, approximately 5’3” tall; she has long, thick, curly Xxxxx hair.

Name on Agent’s receipt reads “Xxxxx”

Bartender F proved to be skilled and efficient in service.  Agent navigated crowd to the bartop and received immediate eye contact and a friendly service from Bartender F.

Service was provided within 2 minutes.  Bartender F took our drink order at 12:40PM and fulfilled it promptly.  She moved to the POS and rang in the drink order.  She quoted a price, and Agent handed her a card with the instruction to close out the tab.  Bartender F closed out the card and handed Agent receipts to sign.

She pours a spot-on 5-count for highballs each and every time without deviation ever.

While seated at Bar 4, Agent observed Bartender F working with the man Agent had suspected was a barback.  This employee (a Xxxxx male, approximately 5’9” tall, with light Xxxxx hair under his ball cap) seemed to be answering a question for Bartender F about the POS system.  At this point, Agent was unsure of this man’s role in the establishment. 

Bar 5:  Smoking Bar, Top Floor

• Bartender G:  Xxxxx male, approximately 5’11” tall, clean shaven but scruffy, light Xxxxx hair under a ball cap

The smoking bar on the top floor was less busy than the other bars in the establishment.  Bartender G was neither fast nor slow. He was observed “polite” to some guests and obtuse to others.

Agent arrived at Bar 5 at approximately 1AM and sat for about 15 minutes.  At approximately 1:07, Agent observed Bartender G consume a shot of Dark Sambucca with a bar guest.  Agent did not observe manager approval. Bartender A failed to ring up the shots on the POS or account for the liquor order in any matter apparent to Agent.

Bartender G pours an inconsistent 5-count highball. Agent observed one rum and Coke observed was poured with a 7-count and served in a pint glass. 

Michael Zenner - CEO  
         
Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint PLLC
PI Lic. 1597616
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811

Bartender Summary:

• Bartender:  Xxxxx:  Xxxxx male; wavy, brown hair under baseball cap; short goatee; blue Polo

The agent sat at the bar and was greeted immediately by Xxxxx.  They placed a drink order (See food and beverage summary).  They were carded.  It was delivered on a bev nap.  They were offered a menu.  The bartender said, “My name is Xxxxx.  Let me know if you need anything.”  He went to the POS.

A new customer sat down around the same time as the agent, placed a draft order, was delivered it immediately, and Xxxxx went to the POS.

Xxxxx did a visual check on them about 6 minutes later.

A new customer that was obviously a regular or employee sat at the bar.  Xxxxx asked if they wanted a certain brand, poured a large draft, delivered it to them, and then went to the POS.  Xxxxx chatted with the customer a bit as he looked at the specials board.

At about 7:28PM, another regular sat at the bar soon after, and a large draft was also delivered to them.  Xxxxx did not go to the POS immediately.  He went to the other side of the bar, got cash to tab out another customer, and then went to the POS.

At about 7:30PM, one more regular joined the bar.  They were also delivered a large draft, and Xxxxx went to the POS. 

Xxxxx checked on the agent, and they placed an order (See food and beverage summary).  He went to the POS.  A side basket with silverware and napkins was delivered about a minute later. 

Xxxxx checked on the agent a couple of minutes after their food was delivered.  They made a request that was delivered immediately (See food and beverage summary). 

About 7 minutes later, Xxxxx asked, “How is everything?  Good?”  He checked on them again about 14 minutes later, offering another drink (See food and beverage summary).  He checked on them again about another 7 minutes after that. 

At about 7:54PM, Xxxxx delivered another draft to the first aforementioned regular, and did not go to the POS right away.  He took a food order from another customer, then went to the POS.

Another customer placed a food order.  Xxxxx went to the POS.  Their food was delivered about 15 minutes later.

At about 8:08PM, Xxxxx delivered a pint to the 2nd aforementioned regular, then went to the POS.  A few minutes later, Xxxxx asked the regular if they wanted something to eat, because the kitchen had made a mistake.

At about 8:21PM, the agent heard a server call out an order.  Xxxxx delivered a draft to her, then took cash to the POS.

The agent finished their plate.  Within 3 minutes, Xxxxx asked, “Can I get that out of your way?” and did, but did not take away the side basket.

A group of new customers sat at the bar and were carded.  Xxxxx poured a 3-count of a liquor for one of their cocktails, and delivered beer to the others, then went to the POS.  Another new customer sat down around the same time, was greeted as an obvious regular, delivered their drink, and Xxxxx went to the POS.

At about 8:27PM, a draft was delivered to the 3rd aforementioned regular, and Xxxxx did not go to the POS. 

The agent placed an order (See food and beverage summary), which was delivered right away. 

At about 8:46PM, Xxxxx delivered another draft to one of the regulars, and went to the POS.

When the agent requested their tab, payment was processed quickly, and the tab was correct.  Xxxxx said, “Thank you.  Have a good night.”

Michael Zenner - CEO  
         
Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint PLLC
PI Lic. 1597616
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811