An intriguing blind item out of 312DD has us scratching our heads. Or not, really:
“I want to let you know that [Chef A] left [Restaurant] because he wasn’t paid for his time there. Unlike [Chef B], this chef was not a partner who was paid (or supposed to be) by profits; Instead, he was promised a bi-monthly salary that was never met. He chose to leave because he did not pay him or show any promise of paying him. [Owner] has owed [Chef A] a large amount of money for over 5 months. He also owes several purveyors, many cooks, and most of the FOH staff money.
Now why does this sound familiar?
Let’s see: An opening chef-partner who left deeply disgruntled. A replacement chef also out the door. A restaurant owner with a history of nonpayment. Of course, we’re just speculating. Who do you think it is?
