In a shocking turn of events, the Oakland-based restaurant Hi Felicia, known for its bold and inclusive approach to fine dining, has faced immense scrutiny since a sudden closure last month. As The San Francisco Chronicle reported earlier, the establishment has received multiple allegations of a toxic work environment and mismanagement, leading to a major downfall despite its once-celebrated vision.

Hi Felicia, brainchild of a young Black member of the LGBTQ+ community named Imana, quickly gained notoriety for its radically progressive establishment that aimed to upend the norms of an industry that often alienates marginalized individuals. The restaurant boasted a predominantly queer and people-of-color staff, offering diners a unique experience through its $195 tasting menu. While the restaurant received coverage in high-profile publications, such as Bon Appetit and the Wall Street Journal, its rapid rise is now overshadowed by numerous controversies brought to light by former employees.

 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by American Express (@americanexpress)

According to Eater SF, former employees have come forward with allegations of bounced paychecks, inadequate working conditions, and high turnover rate throughout the restaurant's lifespan. The Chronicle obtained testimonies from fourteen former Hi Felicia staff members, including managers, servers, and cooks, who reported experiencing a toxic environment rife with issues the restaurant had initially set out to address.

Concerns about sexual harassment were raised, with two of the employees detailing inappropriate comments and unwanted touching by the owner. In addition, disputes over pay, including bounced checks and reduced wages, caused significant financial stress for several workers. The California Department of Industrial Relations reportedly received multiple wage claims filed against Hi Felicia.

Imana addressed the allegations by admitting to creating an “unprofessional” workplace environment in which inappropriate behavior was allowed to flourish. She cited that the close-knit relationships she shared with her staff members, including her friends, led to blurred lines between employer and employee. However, Imana denied sexually harassing anyone and instead attributed the issues to a lack of adequate boundaries between their personal and professional lives.

One former employee stated to The San Francisco Chronicle, “It didn’t, on the inside, feel like that,” referring to the establishment's bold and progressive facade.