下载App
资质规则
旅行
账户
Tripadvisor用户
Champlain Centre
Champlain Centre Mall的点评
点评：WHEN BUSINESS INTERFERENCE GOES TOO FAR
I am writing this as someone who is near and dear to a person who recently experienced a situation that I find extremely troubling.
I have watched this person work hard for decades. I have seen the professionalism, dedication, and experience she brings to the event industry. She has built her reputation through years of showing up, doing the job, and treating people with respect.
Recently, she was involved in a potential business opportunity involving a local mall.
During that process, she expressed her personal opinion about how she felt certain aspects of the business dealings were being handled.
That should have remained a separate business matter.
Instead, information from that situation was communicated to another company where she was pursuing employment.
The result?
She was not hired.
And here is where this situation becomes even more concerning.
There are text messages and voicemails documenting communications surrounding what happened.
Yet, despite those communications, mall management denies being involved.
That's the part that makes you stop and say, Really?
On one hand, there is documentation of communications.
On the other hand, management says they were not involved.
Those two things deserve to be examined carefully.
This isn't simply a matter of someone's word against someone else's when there are messages and voicemails that can be preserved and reviewed.
New York law recognizes claims involving intentional interference with prospective business relationships under certain circumstances. Whether the specific facts of this situation meet the legal requirements is a matter for an attorney and, ultimately, the appropriate legal process to determine.
But the reason this is being taken seriously is simple:
A person's livelihood was affected.
She tried to handle the situation privately.
She tried to understand what happened.
She did not immediately go public.
She gave the people involved an opportunity to address the situation.
And despite everything, she still wasn't given the opportunity to work.
Then something happened that I find very telling:
The company that replaced the original company hired her.
They saw her experience.
They saw her qualifications.
They saw what she could bring to the job.
And they hired her.
That tells me this wasn't about whether she was capable of doing the work.
She has spent decades building her professional reputation.
One disagreement should not follow someone from one business relationship into another and potentially cost them employment.
And if management truly had nothing to do with what happened, then the documentation should speak for itself.
Because ultimately, this isn't about rumors. It's about what the records show.
Texts.
Voicemails.
Communications.
And a very real employment opportunity that was lost.
I'm speaking up because I care about this person and because I don't believe anyone should have their professional reputation or ability to earn a living affected by a separate business dispute.
She deserves to be judged on her work, her experience, and her professionalism.
And thankfully, another company recognized that and gave her the opportunity she deserved.
Sometimes you don't need to say much.
You just preserve the messages, save the voicemails, keep the documentation — and let the facts speak for themselves.
I am writing this as someone who is near and dear to a person who recently experienced a situation that I find extremely troubling.
I have watched this person work hard for decades. I have seen the professionalism, dedication, and experience she brings to the event industry. She has built her reputation through years of showing up, doing the job, and treating people with respect.
Recently, she was involved in a potential business opportunity involving a local mall.
During that process, she expressed her personal opinion about how she felt certain aspects of the business dealings were being handled.
That should have remained a separate business matter.
Instead, information from that situation was communicated to another company where she was pursuing employment.
The result?
She was not hired.
And here is where this situation becomes even more concerning.
There are text messages and voicemails documenting communications surrounding what happened.
Yet, despite those communications, mall management denies being involved.
That's the part that makes you stop and say, Really?
On one hand, there is documentation of communications.
On the other hand, management says they were not involved.
Those two things deserve to be examined carefully.
This isn't simply a matter of someone's word against someone else's when there are messages and voicemails that can be preserved and reviewed.
New York law recognizes claims involving intentional interference with prospective business relationships under certain circumstances. Whether the specific facts of this situation meet the legal requirements is a matter for an attorney and, ultimately, the appropriate legal process to determine.
But the reason this is being taken seriously is simple:
A person's livelihood was affected.
She tried to handle the situation privately.
She tried to understand what happened.
She did not immediately go public.
She gave the people involved an opportunity to address the situation.
And despite everything, she still wasn't given the opportunity to work.
Then something happened that I find very telling:
The company that replaced the original company hired her.
They saw her experience.
They saw her qualifications.
They saw what she could bring to the job.
And they hired her.
That tells me this wasn't about whether she was capable of doing the work.
She has spent decades building her professional reputation.
One disagreement should not follow someone from one business relationship into another and potentially cost them employment.
And if management truly had nothing to do with what happened, then the documentation should speak for itself.
Because ultimately, this isn't about rumors. It's about what the records show.
Texts.
Voicemails.
Communications.
And a very real employment opportunity that was lost.
I'm speaking up because I care about this person and because I don't believe anyone should have their professional reputation or ability to earn a living affected by a separate business dispute.
She deserves to be judged on her work, her experience, and her professionalism.
And thankfully, another company recognized that and gave her the opportunity she deserved.
Sometimes you don't need to say much.
You just preserve the messages, save the voicemails, keep the documentation — and let the facts speak for themselves.
翻译：当商业干扰超出合理界限
我以一个与某人关系密切之人的身份写下这些文字——此人最近遭遇了一件令我深感不安的事情。
几十年来，我亲眼见证她辛勤工作。我看到了她为活动行业所付出的专业精神、敬业态度以及丰富经验。多年以来，她始终恪尽职守、认真对待工作，并以尊重的态度对待身边的每一个人，由此赢得了良好声誉。
最近，她参与了一个与当地购物中心相关的潜在商业机会。
在此过程中，她表达了自己对某些商业交易处理方式的个人看法。
这本应只是一件独立的商业事务才对。
然而，该事件的相关信息却被透露给了另一家她正在申请工作的公司。
结果如何呢？
她没有被录用。
而这种情况最令人担忧的地方就在这里。有一些短信和语音留言记录了当时发生的沟通情况。
然而，尽管有这些沟通记录，购物中心的管理层仍否认自己参与其中。
正是这一点让人不禁要问：真的吗？
一方面，有沟通记录为证；
另一方面，管理层却声称自己并未参与。
这两点都值得仔细推敲。既然有可以保存并查阅的消息和语音邮件，这就不仅仅是“一方说法与另一方说法相矛盾”的问题了。
在特定情况下，纽约法律承认因故意破坏预期商业关系而引发的索赔请求。至于本案的具体事实是否符合法律要件，则需由律师来判断，最终也要通过适当的法律程序来裁定。不过，这件事之所以受到重视，原因很简单：
一个人的生计受到了影响。
她试图私下解决这一问题。
她努力去了解事情的来龙去脉。
她并没有立刻将此事公之于众。
她给了涉事各方一个解决问题的机会。
然而即便如此，她依然没有得到工作的机会。
后来发生了一件事，我觉得很有启示意义：
接替原公司的新公司雇佣了她。
他们看到了她的经验与能力。他们看到了她的资历。
他们也看到了她能为这份工作带来什么。
于是他们录用了她。
这说明问题并不在于她是否有能力胜任这份工作。
几十年来，她一直在努力塑造自己的职业声誉。
一次意见不合不应伴随一个人从一段工作关系延续到另一段关系中，更不应因此导致其失去工作。
如果管理层真的与所发生的事毫无关系，那么相关记录理应能说明一切。
因为说到底……这与谣言无关。这关乎记录所显示的事实。
短信。
语音邮件。
各种通讯记录。
还有一个实实在在的就业机会，却因此付诸东流。
我站出来发声，是因为我关心这个人，也因为我认为任何人的职业声誉或谋生能力都不应受到其他商业纠纷的影响。
她理应凭借自己的工作表现、经验以及专业素养来接受评判。
谢天谢地。另一家公司意识到了这一点，于是给了她应得的机会。
有时候，你并不需要说太多。
只需保存那些消息、录音以及相关文档——让事实来说话即可。
我以一个与某人关系密切之人的身份写下这些文字——此人最近遭遇了一件令我深感不安的事情。
几十年来，我亲眼见证她辛勤工作。我看到了她为活动行业所付出的专业精神、敬业态度以及丰富经验。多年以来，她始终恪尽职守、认真对待工作，并以尊重的态度对待身边的每一个人，由此赢得了良好声誉。
最近，她参与了一个与当地购物中心相关的潜在商业机会。
在此过程中，她表达了自己对某些商业交易处理方式的个人看法。
这本应只是一件独立的商业事务才对。
然而，该事件的相关信息却被透露给了另一家她正在申请工作的公司。
结果如何呢？
她没有被录用。
而这种情况最令人担忧的地方就在这里。有一些短信和语音留言记录了当时发生的沟通情况。
然而，尽管有这些沟通记录，购物中心的管理层仍否认自己参与其中。
正是这一点让人不禁要问：真的吗？
一方面，有沟通记录为证；
另一方面，管理层却声称自己并未参与。
这两点都值得仔细推敲。既然有可以保存并查阅的消息和语音邮件，这就不仅仅是“一方说法与另一方说法相矛盾”的问题了。
在特定情况下，纽约法律承认因故意破坏预期商业关系而引发的索赔请求。至于本案的具体事实是否符合法律要件，则需由律师来判断，最终也要通过适当的法律程序来裁定。不过，这件事之所以受到重视，原因很简单：
一个人的生计受到了影响。
她试图私下解决这一问题。
她努力去了解事情的来龙去脉。
她并没有立刻将此事公之于众。
她给了涉事各方一个解决问题的机会。
然而即便如此，她依然没有得到工作的机会。
后来发生了一件事，我觉得很有启示意义：
接替原公司的新公司雇佣了她。
他们看到了她的经验与能力。他们看到了她的资历。
他们也看到了她能为这份工作带来什么。
于是他们录用了她。
这说明问题并不在于她是否有能力胜任这份工作。
几十年来，她一直在努力塑造自己的职业声誉。
一次意见不合不应伴随一个人从一段工作关系延续到另一段关系中，更不应因此导致其失去工作。
如果管理层真的与所发生的事毫无关系，那么相关记录理应能说明一切。
因为说到底……这与谣言无关。这关乎记录所显示的事实。
短信。
语音邮件。
各种通讯记录。
还有一个实实在在的就业机会，却因此付诸东流。
我站出来发声，是因为我关心这个人，也因为我认为任何人的职业声誉或谋生能力都不应受到其他商业纠纷的影响。
她理应凭借自己的工作表现、经验以及专业素养来接受评判。
谢天谢地。另一家公司意识到了这一点，于是给了她应得的机会。
有时候，你并不需要说太多。
只需保存那些消息、录音以及相关文档——让事实来说话即可。
© 2026 Tripadvisor 版权所有。
部分照片由 VFM Leonardo 提供。
TripAdvisor公司对外部网站的内容一概不负责。优惠价格中不含税和其他费用。
ICP证：沪B2-20200433
沪ICP备20013175号
沪公网安备31010502005427号鹰程信息技术（上海）有限公司
