# It's sad to see racial prejudice alive and well in business and banking **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [July 7, 2011, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-sad-to-see-racial-prejudice-alive-and-well-in-business-and-banking/588207 "2011-07-07T17:32:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2011, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-sad-to-see-racial-prejudice-alive-and-well-in-business-and-banking/588207/142 "2011-07-11T14:45:34Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The bank isn’t going to cash a check they don’t have. Your position makes no sense. You’re trying to pound a square peg into a round hole. The bank would have to cancel a legitimate check that still exists. The fact that the recipient no longer has it is a complication. They also can’t deposit it into an account that is closed. The account no longer exists. > > You’re confusing a great injustice with the ability to fix it quickly. About the only way the bank could have given him his money would be if the President of the bank just waved his magic wand and donated the money as a gesture of good will. That would have been a good business decision considering the bad publicity and lawsuit they face. The difference here is between the obligation (the debt owed by the bank, crystalized by the demand made on the bank) and the phyiscal description of that obligation (the piece of paper known as a “cheque”). The obligation came due when the cheque was validly pesented. Thereafter, the physical cheque itself is no more than a piece of paper. In short, when the customer validly presents a legitimate cheque to the bank, the bank is under an obligation to return him his money that they have borrowed. They certainly cannot use events that they themselves have manufactured (wrongly refusing to honour the cheque, throwing the customer in jail) as reasons why that obligation does not exist. Perhaps the bank could plead in its defence that they could not find the man to return him his money - though there is no evidence that they tried, or that if they had, it would have been difficult. What you are all confused about is in thinking that it is the cheque - the physical bit of paper - that matters. It does not; it is the obligation represented by the cheque that matters. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2011, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-sad-to-see-racial-prejudice-alive-and-well-in-business-and-banking/588207/143 "2011-07-11T14:48:10Z")
> [@Hilarity\_N.Suze](#): > > Okay, I ran this past some people I know who work for banks, including one who works specifically in the fraud department of a bank (and there is lots and lots of fraud and attempted fraud these days) without mentioning that the guy was black. The question to hand was: Would you call the cops. > > Yes. > > Then I threw in that he was Nigerian–but it didn’t matter because, without even knowing that, one of them said they’d call a manager, and the other one, who IS a manager, said he would HAVE to call the cops. Even if the check was drawn on their bank. Because there are some very good fakes out there and banks have been burned. > > So the initial thing wasn’t necessarily racism, but of course, it can’t be ruled out. > > However, what would happen next at either of their banks, once the check was vetted and found to be good, diverges quite wildly from what happened at Chase. They would have made sure the guy got out of jail, they would have paid all charges to redeem the car and gotten the car back, and they would have made good on the check, immediately, the next day. (They both agreed though that Chase is a horrible bank, but said that was beyond the pale even for Chase.) > > And remember that bank that foreclosed on a house owned by a couple, and said house happened to be PAID FOR? Banks are not the gold standard for customer service. > > Bad customer service is apparently just as rampant as check fraud, probably even more so, but my bank experts seemed to think this kind of treatment–after the check was proven to be legit–was much more likely to be doled out to someone who, in their view, wouldn’t make a lot of noise about it. So that’s probably where the racism would come in. This was my opinion - that people are concentrating on the wrong part of the story. The initial concern over fraud was not the problem - a legitimate bank could easily react that way. The problem was how the bank reacted _after_ it itself discovered that there was no fraud. They ought to have paid his money immediately. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2011, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-sad-to-see-racial-prejudice-alive-and-well-in-business-and-banking/588207/144 "2011-07-11T15:01:25Z")
> [@Larry\_Mudd](#): > > As you are a legal professional, I am confident that you have a clearer grasp of all the relevant law than I might ever hope to have picked up through happenstance - so I wouldn’t presume to argue with you, but only ask for further explanation, as I remain confused. > > It seems clear to me that the bank’s obligation was to honour the cheque, as it was clearly a valid instrument. Assuming, however, they did not refuse to honour the cheque on whimsy but had arrived at the erroneous conclusion that it was a forgery honestly (as is the impression I have,) and that Mr. Njoku did not assert to them his claim to his money until he had retrieved the instrument from evidence (as is my further impression) then did the bank have any legal obligation to actively endeavour to seek him out and ensure that he received his money? > > If not, I don’t see how they might reasonably be held liable for whatever losses he suffered through not having his money for another month. > > Given that his account _was_ closed, and there is no reason to believe that they had his current address, I don’t understand how they would be expected to put the money in his hands without him further asserting his claim to it, and am not at all surprised that no steps were taken in this direction. They had every reason to believe that he was still in possession of instrument that ought to have been as good as cash to him (if not for whatever typo or administrative screw-up misled them.) > > No? I’m not a banking lawyer - this isn’t, thankfully, my field at all. I’m certainly not speaking from any position of authority on this! 😃 However, it is my understanding that the initial demand by the customer is determinative. The demand was refused, but it was refused wrongly. It is similar to my analogy to asking for your money back from someone you have lent it to (the relationship between bank and customer in this situation is, at least in Canada, debtor-creditor). There is no legal need for the customer to make _subsequent_ demands, after the customer got his cheque back (though you’d expect that he would, as a matter of practicality). The demand is said to have “crystalized” when the cheque was validly presented (that is, become due and payable). Thereafter, the bank went from being a debtor of the customer (that is, a person holding money owed to the customer under agreement as to terms) to being simply a person holding the customer’s money without legal excuse at all. Under those circumstances - where you have someone elses’ money, they have asked for it back legitimately, and you have refused to _give_ it back for reasons that, while understandable, were wrong - you are liable in tort for any damages that result from your failure to give the money back (the name of this tort is “conversion” - basically, dealing with someone elses’ property in a manner inconsistent with their rights to it). Now it may be difficult to find the rightful owner but that is the _bank_’s problem - one it may be noted that they created. Given that the guy was in jail over the weekend, and so presumably wasn’t going anywhere, I find the argument that the bank could not have found him unpersuasive. How hard can it be to find a guy in jail? Once again, do not be distracted by the fate of the physical cheque. It’s just evidence of the underlying obligation. The important thing is the obligation, not the cheque. ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2011, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-sad-to-see-racial-prejudice-alive-and-well-in-business-and-banking/588207/145 "2011-07-11T16:13:56Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > This was my opinion - that people are concentrating on the wrong part of the story. > > The initial concern over fraud was not the problem - a legitimate bank could easily react that way. The problem was how the bank reacted _after_ it itself discovered that there was no fraud. > > They ought to have paid his money immediately. This. From what’s been said in this thread, I can understand the bank being suspicious on day one; but when the customer returned on day 2, after the bank had one whole day to check their own records, plus the ID ! of the customer, they could have either said “We need more time to verify this, so sorry, please come back in 7 days” which would have still prevented fraud if the check was not covered… or said “Yes, we looked at our own damn records, the check is legit, here’s your money”. I can’t understand how the bank can call the police on day 2, after having the check in possession, and since it’s from their own bank, they can verify all records and accounts in hours, not weeks. What makes me suspect racism is that so far I have not heard an explanation by the teller or the bank manager why they arrested the customer on day 2. I can quite understand that the behaviour plus the previous account info plus the quick departure on day 1 looked suspicious. But why the arrest on day 2, when there was no need for urgency? Yes, bank people are only humans and can make mistakes - but the teller supposedly called her manager (or should have called, both of standard procedure and because when calling the police to a customer, a higher-up should know about it). So two people at least dropped the ball by not checking further, and if they have no explanation for the events on day 2 - then I will assume it’s racism and that’s why they are afraid to admit it. If the teller messed up her protocols, if the bank manager was out of town so no higher-up could be consulted etc., surely that would have been used as explanation by now. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2011, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-sad-to-see-racial-prejudice-alive-and-well-in-business-and-banking/588207/146 "2011-07-11T17:19:20Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Once again, do not be distracted by the fate of the physical cheque. It’s just evidence of the underlying obligation. The important thing is the obligation, not the cheque. But the physical check was abandon by the person presenting it. There is a process with all transactions and that process was interrupted by the person presenting it. Because of that the check was taken by the police in the resulting confusion. The check is proof of the underlying obligation. The bank did not lose it, it was taken by the police. It should have been returned to the man immediately upon clarification. What it comes down to was whether the bank had a legitimate reason to question the check. If they did then the transaction was interrupted by the man and the process starts over. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2011, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-sad-to-see-racial-prejudice-alive-and-well-in-business-and-banking/588207/147 "2011-07-11T17:30:29Z")
I just can’t imagine going into a bank, presenting a check, them deciding its good, then me insisting I get to KEEP the check and still insisting they give me the money. To me that what this “its valid when it presented” business implies. Not to say the guy wasnt likely screwed a couple other ways by bad luck, bad circumstances of his own causeing, bad procedures, and just plain big bank/org inertia. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2011, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-sad-to-see-racial-prejudice-alive-and-well-in-business-and-banking/588207/148 "2011-07-11T17:30:54Z")
The “second fuck-up” aspect here (ie the bank’s failure to get the guy out of jail and immediately honor the check) doesn’t necessarily show that the bank had racist motivations any more than the first fuck-up does. Many of you simply cannot accept that bad things can happen to black people without racism being involved. Also, what if the guy was white? White is a race. His mistreatment if he were white could also be due to racism, right? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2011, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-sad-to-see-racial-prejudice-alive-and-well-in-business-and-banking/588207/149 "2011-07-11T18:27:11Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > The “second fuck-up” aspect here (ie the bank’s failure to get the guy out of jail and immediately honor the check) doesn’t necessarily show that the bank had racist motivations any more than the first fuck-up does. I agree - without knowing more, you can only presume that the bad treatment was inspired by racism, you can’t know it. The weight of that presumption would be a matter of the surrounding circumstances, much of which we don’t know. However, the second fuck-up is far more _inexplicable_ than the first. The first is, in my opinon at least, somewhat understandable given the circumstances - a customer with a history of overdrawn account, who ducks out while the cheque was being processed. The second fuck-up is just hard to explain. Once the cheque was found to be absolutely genuine, the bank ought to have moved heaven and earth to get the poor sod of a customer out of jail and get him his money. Indeed, as I’ve explained, a case could be made that (quite aside from customer-service issues) the bank made itself liable for damages by not doing so. Inexplicably bad treatment is not of course necessarily racist - it could very well be the bank treats everyone badly in an even-handed sort of way. 😉 However, it is easy to see how it would raise some eyebrows - rightly or wrongly. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2011, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-sad-to-see-racial-prejudice-alive-and-well-in-business-and-banking/588207/150 "2011-07-11T19:02:08Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > The second fuck-up is just hard to explain. Once the cheque was found to be absolutely genuine, the bank ought to have moved heaven and earth to get the poor sod of a customer out of jail and get him his money. Indeed, as I’ve explained, a case could be made that (quite aside from customer-service issues) the bank made itself liable for damages by not doing so. It’s easy to explain, it’s hard to justify. Maybe you’ve never worked for a large corporation. I have worked for a number of them all my life. I was involved with an event where something fell through the cracks and I spent the better part of a day making myself very unpopular. It involved a life and death situation that turned out well out of sheer luck but nobody wanted ownership of the followup (which is where I came in). It was truly something that fell between the cracks of the corporation. It literally took someone who cared and was willing to add frowny points to a career to make sure it didn’t happen again. It was all because someone accidentally pushed the wrong button. It’s tough to get crap to roll up hill. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2011, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-sad-to-see-racial-prejudice-alive-and-well-in-business-and-banking/588207/151 "2011-07-11T19:08:13Z")
Malthus, why is there an “it was racism” presumption in the first place? That’s the attitude I don’t understand. Seems to me that anyone wanting to prove any specific motivation for either fuck-up has the burden of proving that motivation. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2011, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-sad-to-see-racial-prejudice-alive-and-well-in-business-and-banking/588207/152 "2011-07-11T19:28:10Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Malthus, why is there an “it was racism” presumption in the first place? That’s the attitude I don’t understand. Seems to me that anyone wanting to prove any specific motivation for either fuck-up has the burden of proving that motivation. I think it comes in this way: the presumption is that bad customer service is motivated by the busnesses’ perception of the customer. Perception could be either legitimate (history of overdrafts) or illegitimate (guy is Black = must be scum). Where the bad service is explicable (and I think the first fuck-up is), the natural tendency is to assume that the fuck up was caused by the explicable perception (history of overdafts = fraud allegation). Where the bad service is otherwise inexplicable (and I think the second fuck-up is), the natural tendency is to assume malice (guy is Black = he is scum = we can treat him like scum). Again, this is just a tendency, a presumption. Without more, you can’t know what actually motivated anyone. **Magiver** makes a good point that big corporations operate in many cases by inertia and what may appear to be malice may be simply that - inertia. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2011, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-sad-to-see-racial-prejudice-alive-and-well-in-business-and-banking/588207/153 "2011-07-11T19:34:25Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > I just can’t imagine going into a bank, presenting a check, them deciding its good, then me insisting I get to KEEP the check and still insisting they give me the money. What are you talking about? That’s not what happened in this case. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2011, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-sad-to-see-racial-prejudice-alive-and-well-in-business-and-banking/588207/154 "2011-07-11T22:09:48Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Where the bad service is otherwise inexplicable (and I think the second fuck-up is), the natural tendency is to assume malice (guy is Black = he is scum = we can treat him like scum). I still don’t see how that figures. “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” I’m not really sure that I buy that he was treated “like scum” after the bank realized their error. In hindsight, it’s crystal clear that they ought to have been more diligent about setting things straight - but they might easily have assumed that he was charged and released the same day, and that the phone call was sufficient to make sure that charges were dropped. “He’s out the door, he has his cheque, when he comes back in the door we are going to eat so much crow we’ll be shitting feathers for a month.” And then when he _doesn’t_ return on Monday, assume he took the cheque to cash it somewhere else. I think this makes perfect sense from the point of view of individual employees, and it isn’t hard to understand how it might have happened without deciding that it must be racism at work. If there were _more_ cases where bank customers had been wrongfully arrested and some disparity in the demographics, that would be something else again - but everything that happened is perfectly explicable without a race element. Even if you feel that the employees’ perception of Mr. Njoku must have played a role in what they did or didn’t do after the error came to light, this would _still_ be explicable based on his past history with the bank, rather than his complexion. He wrote a bunch of bad cheques, had his account closed, and failed to make good on his to debt to them for over a year. Ergo, scum. Yet people still seem eager to act as though there _must_ be racism at work. This is nice: [Black Man Jailed for Depositing Chase Check at Chase Bank](http://atlantapost.com/2011/07/11/black-man-jailed-for-depositing-chase-check-at-chase-bank/) - with a prominent “SPONSORED BY WELLS FARGO” banner that links to [https://www.wellsfargo.com/jump/enterprise/africanamerican](https://www.wellsfargo.com/jump/enterprise/africanamerican) Nice to see _someone_ is making some hay out of the situation, but that really doesn’t seem very honest. Maybe if their pitch was “At WELLS-FARGO, we’ll still love you even if you kite a few checks…” ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2011, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-sad-to-see-racial-prejudice-alive-and-well-in-business-and-banking/588207/155 "2011-07-11T22:13:13Z")
> [@Larry\_Mudd](#): > > Maybe if their pitch was “At WELLS-FARGO, we’ll still love you even if you kite a few checks…” Or “At WELLS-FARGO, we’ll still love you even if you happen to share a nationality with millions of grifters.” ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2011, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-sad-to-see-racial-prejudice-alive-and-well-in-business-and-banking/588207/156 "2011-07-11T22:22:08Z")
> [@Larry\_Mudd](#): > > I still don’t see how that figures. “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” > > I’m not really sure that I buy that he was treated “like scum” after the bank realized their error. In hindsight, it’s crystal clear that they ought to have been more diligent about setting things straight - but they might easily have assumed that he was charged and released the same day, and that the phone call was sufficient to make sure that charges were dropped. “He’s out the door, he has his cheque, when he comes back in the door we are going to eat so much crow we’ll be shitting feathers for a month.” And then when he _doesn’t_ return on Monday, assume he took the cheque to cash it somewhere else. I think this makes perfect sense from the point of view of individual employees, and it isn’t hard to understand how it might have happened without deciding that it must be racism at work. > > If there were _more_ cases where bank customers had been wrongfully arrested and some disparity in the demographics, that would be something else again - but everything that happened is perfectly explicable without a race element. Even if you feel that the employees’ perception of Mr. Njoku must have played a role in what they did or didn’t do after the error came to light, this would _still_ be explicable based on his past history with the bank, rather than his complexion. He wrote a bunch of bad cheques, had his account closed, and failed to make good on his to debt to them for over a year. Ergo, scum. > > Yet people still seem eager to act as though there _must_ be racism at work. > > This is nice: [Black Man Jailed for Depositing Chase Check at Chase Bank](http://atlantapost.com/2011/07/11/black-man-jailed-for-depositing-chase-check-at-chase-bank/) - with a prominent “SPONSORED BY WELLS FARGO” banner that links to [https://www.wellsfargo.com/jump/enterprise/africanamerican](https://www.wellsfargo.com/jump/enterprise/africanamerican) > > Nice to see _someone_ is making some hay out of the situation, but that really doesn’t seem very honest. Maybe if their pitch was “At WELLS-FARGO, we’ll still love you even if you kite a few checks…” Just to be clear, I’m not saying that “… there _must_ be racism at work” in any shape or form. I’m explaining why there would be a natural tendency to assume malice. Myself, I think stupidity or inertia is more likely. Of course racism remains possible. But it is not the crux of the guy’s legal complaint. The Wels Fargo link is of course hilarious. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2011, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-sad-to-see-racial-prejudice-alive-and-well-in-business-and-banking/588207/157 "2011-07-11T22:53:14Z")
It doesn’t help that black people are disproportionately represented in prison populations. Anything that involves a black person going to jail when they didn’t commit a crime already has quite a lot in common with racist. Reasonable doubt is not something human beings hold themselves to. There’s no great loss if we’re wrong and it isn’t racism. But there is a nice win if we are right, as we can say we told you so. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-sad-to-see-racial-prejudice-alive-and-well-in-business-and-banking/588207/158 "2011-07-12T13:42:20Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Just to be clear, I’m not saying that “… there _must_ be racism at work” in any shape or form. I’m explaining why there would be a natural tendency to assume malice. Gotcha - fair dinkum. [Here](http://consumerist.com/2011/07/chase-hugs-it-out-with-man-it-had-thrown-in-jail-for-cashing-non-fake-check.html) is a maddeningly detail-light update on the denouement of the situation. > [@](#): > > “I am grateful to Chase for resolving this,” said the 28-year-old construction worker who was not only jailed, but lost his job and had his car towed and sold. “They made an honest mistake with the check, and when the right people got involved, they acted quickly to make amends.” > > A rep for Chase tells Consumerist, “We deeply regret what happened to Mr. Njoku and have apologized to him. Chase has already changed its procedures in branches to avoid situations like this.” It’s killing me to still not know specifically what procedural problem allowed it to happen in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-sad-to-see-racial-prejudice-alive-and-well-in-business-and-banking/588207/159 "2011-07-12T14:10:22Z")
Presumably there was a confidentiality agreement as part of the settlement. My only question is whether this check involved five figures or six. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-sad-to-see-racial-prejudice-alive-and-well-in-business-and-banking/588207/160 "2011-07-12T17:19:44Z")
It doesn’t matter how big the settlement was - nobody is going to cash the check for him. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-sad-to-see-racial-prejudice-alive-and-well-in-business-and-banking/588207/161 "2011-07-12T17:33:46Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > It doesn’t matter how big the settlement was - nobody is going to cash the check for him. > > Regards, > Shodan What is this - some sort of feedback loop, where every time the guy sets out to cash his cheque, he gets dicked around, only to receive an even-larger cheque as compensation, and then he sets out to cash that one … ? 😃 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-sad-to-see-racial-prejudice-alive-and-well-in-business-and-banking/588207.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-sad-to-see-racial-prejudice-alive-and-well-in-business-and-banking/588207.md?page=9)