LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Yates responds to accusations

To the Editor: I do not understand why a six-month-old story by ex-employees seeking revenge had to be rushed to publication. This is a story that had been dormant for months, as Park had stalled my testimony from being heard by the Philadelphia Human Relations Commission. Desperate to know my testimony in advance, he tried to use the DP to provide him with my defense? Twice that night, I asked the reporter to delay the story just one day for personal reasons. The story was given to her by the attorney for the other side, who had months to decide what his clients had said, while the reporter gave me only a moment's notice. I was not afforded the chance to meet with my attorney, so I declined to be interviewed. In the story, Lotman (a former bouncer) stated that "The reason I am going through this is that I still have many friends who work there." The truth is, my employees do not know him. Mummert claimed that I did not respect his sexuality. This is an outrageous lie. I knew his sexuality when I hired him. He was by far my highest-paid employee. I also knew that Mummert, a one-time stockbroker with a graduate degree, had been laid off for about five months? I thought his education would be a real plus for my store. I respected Mummert and treated him well. When he found himself locked out by court order, evicted and homeless at midnight over a year ago, he called my home sobbing and begging for a place to stay. Not only was he homeless, not one of his friends, neighbors or even his own daughter would offer him shelter. Concerned for his sake, I drove for over a half hour to pick him up in Center City. He stayed at my home for about a week; I have never allowed any other employee into my home. I also lent him $900 to enable him to get another apartment. I never asked Mummert for a dime, nor did I ever receive even a thank you. Ironically, Mummert then wanted to sue his landlord, claiming sexual discrimination. He asked me to refer him to my attorney, Leonard Bucki. My attorney declined. In the DP article, Park claimed the next mediation session is to decide if the city ordinance will be applied to this case. Wrong. The next session is to allow me to present my defense. Park also stated that I did not bring any witnesses to the first mediation session. That is correct; you do not bring your witnesses until it is your turn to testify. As anyone who comes to my store knows, it is wide open with no doors inside. There is no place in the store where the alleged verbal advances could have occurred. That is why I have requested the commission to do a site visit. I have nothing to hide. I respect all people regardless of sex, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexuality. This is clearly evidenced by anyone who has ever visited my store. I would like to graciously thank all my employees and many customers who have given me their support and faith. My store is family-owned and -operated. We take great pride in all that we do. Eric Yates Owner, Baskin Robbins n To the Editor: I am writing in response to "Claims pending at Baskin Robbins" (DP, 1/24/96). I am deeply concerned that the DP would publish an article so full of false allegations. I have been an employee at Baskin Robbins for over eight months. In that time, I have come to know a great deal about owner Eric Yates. He is a man of unquestionable integrity and impeccable moral character. The fact that these allegations are being put forth is ridiculous, and that the DP has chosen to publish them seems even more absurd. Although I was not an employee at the time of the alleged incidents, I can assure you that since my employment, there have been no improprieties toward me or any other members of our staff. It is unfortunate that the two plaintiffs show more enthusiasm for casting aspersions toward Yates than for resolving the case. I only hope that when these claims are proven to be nothing more than defamatory lies, the DP will be just as quick to publish the truth. Masahiro Matsumoto College '97 n To the Editor: I was very upset with the article "Claims pending at Baskin Robbins" (DP, 1/24/96). Over the summer I worked part-time for Eric Yates, and have never encountered a nicer boss. His altruistic concern for all of our welfare was outstanding. I lived around the corner from Baskin Robbins -- I did not even have to cross the street to get home -- and he insisted that someone walk me home every night when we finished at 1 a.m. On especially busy nights, he would order pizza for us to enjoy while cleaning up. Baskin Robbins is a family business; Yates's father and brother work there. Yates has worked hard to make it the second-most profitable Baskin Robbins in Pennsylvania. When Yates and his father bought the store a few years ago, it was not ranked nearly as high, and Yates is extremely proud of the improvement. He could not have come this far if there was not mutual respect between him and his employees. He was always easy to talk to, never intimidating, and very open to change. The one-sided article practically indicted Yates of the crime, and obviously did not allow him to properly tell his side of the story. I worked with Robert Lotman, and after my first night working with him, my boss knew that there was an uncomfortable situation between he and I. Robert harassed me the whole evening. He constantly questioned my ability as both a female and a petite person. Yates approached me about Robert, eliminating the potential of an awkward situation of me having to approach him on my first night. I loathed the days I had to work with Robert and was relieved when he left. From my experience working at Baskin Robbins, I know that Robert Lotman has no case. A newspaper that represents a leading institution should have the wisdom to pursue unbiased, thorough journalism instead of producing sensational stories that declare guilt when none has been proven, nor will be. Jennifer Kim College '97