A San Francisco bartender who became a focal point of a widely circulated social media video has been dismissed from his job, sparking renewed debate over workplace safety, employee conduct, and employer liability in volatile public confrontations. Miguel Marchese, 25, was fired from Hazie’s restaurant weeks after footage showed him tripping an intoxicated customer outside the establishment following a chaotic altercation that began inside the bar.
The incident, which occurred on December 13, involved a belligerent patron later identified by police as Shireen Afkari, an employee of the fitness tracking company Strava. Afkari was arrested for public intoxication after the confrontation and subsequently terminated from her own job, but Hazie’s decision to also fire Marchese has drawn intense scrutiny online and within the hospitality industry. The episode unfolded during what witnesses described as an escalating dispute after staff at Hazie’s stopped serving Afkari alcohol due to her intoxicated state.
Video from inside the restaurant shows Afkari yelling at employees and other patrons while recording the situation on her phone. Her behavior quickly turned physical. Footage and eyewitness accounts indicate she slapped individuals who attempted to film her conduct, prompting staff members to intervene in order to protect coworkers and customers. What followed was a chaotic struggle involving multiple people, culminating in Afkari and her male companion being removed from the premises.
Although Hazie’s management initially stood by their staff publicly, the restaurant later reversed course, citing insurance concerns. According to reports, Marchese was informed via email that he was being terminated because he was deemed an “insurance risk,” and he was offered a severance package contingent upon signing a non-disclosure agreement and agreeing not to pursue legal action. The decision has reignited long-standing tensions around how service workers are expected to respond to violent or abusive patrons, particularly when they themselves are subjected to physical assault.
The Incident at Hazie’s and the Viral Video That Followed
The confrontation that ultimately cost Miguel Marchese his job began inside Hazie’s restaurant on the evening of December 13. According to video evidence and police statements, Afkari had been drinking heavily and became hostile after staff refused to serve her additional alcohol. In the footage, she is seen shouting at employees and patrons, accusing them of mistreatment while continuously recording on her phone. Her male companion follows her through the bar, occasionally attempting to intervene as the situation escalates.
The video shows Afkari slapping at least two individuals who were filming her behavior, an action that significantly intensified the conflict. In response, a Hazie’s employee is seen forcefully taking her to the ground, an act that appears aimed at stopping further assaults. At this point, several staff members and customers become involved, attempting to de-escalate the situation and separate those involved. Afkari’s companion is physically removed from the restaurant by two men, while Marchese is seen carrying Afkari outside.
Once outside, the confrontation continued rather than subsided. Video footage shows Afkari grabbing Marchese by the hair and refusing to let go as he attempts to retreat back into the restaurant. During this struggle, Marchese throws Afkari’s phone into the street, an act that appears intended to distract her and free himself. Afkari then runs after him, at which point Marchese extends his foot, causing her to trip and fall hard onto the pavement.
San Francisco – On December 13, 2025, an intoxicated woman, Shireen Afkari, and her companion caused a chaotic disturbance at Hazie’s restaurant in San Francisco’s Hayes Valley after being cut off from alcohol service for rude behavior.
— GrindFace TV (Entertainment) (@grindfacetv) December 18, 2025
Afkari verbally abused and physically… pic.twitter.com/q8Ek0IoLz3
This moment, captured on video and widely shared across social media platforms, became the focal point of public reaction. Some viewers viewed Marchese’s action as excessive, while others argued it was a defensive response to an ongoing assault. In an Instagram post shared after the incident, Marchese claimed that Afkari tripped over him accidentally while chasing him. He acknowledged kicking her during the altercation but framed his actions as necessary to escape her grip after repeated attempts to disengage peacefully.
Police later arrested Afkari for public intoxication, and she was detained briefly. No charges against Marchese were reported. Strava, Afkari’s employer at the time, issued a statement condemning violence and announced that she was no longer with the company, stating that her conduct did not reflect its standards.
Employment Consequences for Both Parties
In the days following the incident, attention quickly turned to the professional consequences faced by those involved. Strava acted swiftly, terminating Afkari and issuing a public statement distancing the company from her actions. The company emphasized that it does not condone violence and that employee behavior outside of work can still reflect on corporate values and culture.
Hazie’s response, however, unfolded more slowly and proved more controversial. Initially, there was no indication that Marchese would face disciplinary action, particularly given evidence that he had been physically assaulted by a customer. Many observers assumed that management would back an employee who had been attacked while performing his duties. That perception shifted when reports emerged that Marchese had been fired several weeks later.
Read : 50-Year-Old Roseita Lavette Smith Shot Son Outside Red Rooster Restaurant for Being Disrespectful
According to the Gazetteer SF and other outlets, Marchese was notified of his termination via email and informed that he was considered an “insurance risk.” This phrasing suggested that Hazie’s decision was driven less by moral judgment and more by concerns over liability and coverage. In environments where alcohol is served, insurers often scrutinize incidents involving physical force, regardless of context, and businesses may face higher premiums or loss of coverage following viral altercations.
Marchese was reportedly offered a $5,000 severance package on the condition that he sign a non-disclosure agreement and waive his right to sue the restaurant. While such agreements are common in employment disputes, their use in this case drew criticism from labor advocates, who argued that it placed undue pressure on a young service worker already facing public scrutiny.
The firing also raised questions about whether Hazie’s had clear policies or training in place for handling violent patrons. Service industry workers are frequently instructed to avoid physical confrontation, yet they are also expected to protect coworkers and customers when situations become dangerous. The lack of clear, enforceable guidance can leave employees vulnerable to discipline even when acting under duress.
Debate Over Workplace Safety, Liability, and Public Perception
The dismissal of Miguel Marchese has fueled a broader debate about how employers balance employee safety with legal and reputational risk. Many service workers and industry advocates have expressed concern that the decision sends a chilling message to employees who may find themselves confronted with violent customers. In their view, firing a worker who was grabbed by the hair and assaulted may discourage staff from intervening in dangerous situations, potentially putting more people at risk.
Read : Breastfeeding Mother Aris Kopiec Kicked Out of Toccoa Riverside Restaurant After Nursing Infant
Others argue that businesses operating in high-liability environments, such as bars and restaurants, have limited options once an incident becomes viral. From this perspective, insurers and legal advisors often exert significant influence over employment decisions, and actions taken in the heat of the moment can have long-term financial implications for a small business. Even if an employee’s actions are understandable, they may still be deemed unacceptable under insurance policies or internal risk assessments.
Public opinion has been sharply divided. On social media, many users have rallied behind Marchese, portraying him as a worker who was punished for defending himself after being assaulted. Others have criticized both parties, arguing that physical force by staff should always be a last resort and that throwing a customer’s phone and tripping her crossed a line, regardless of provocation.
Legal experts note that self-defense claims in workplace settings are often complicated. While individuals have the right to defend themselves from assault, employers are not always obligated to retain employees whose actions expose the business to potential lawsuits. This tension between individual rights and corporate risk management lies at the heart of the controversy.
The case has also highlighted the increasingly blurred boundary between private conduct and public accountability in the age of viral video. A few seconds of footage, stripped of context, can shape narratives and influence decisions long after an incident occurs. For workers like Marchese, the consequences of a single moment can extend far beyond the immediate situation, affecting employment prospects and personal reputation.
As of now, Hazie’s has not issued a detailed public explanation beyond citing insurance concerns, and Marchese has not indicated whether he plans to challenge his termination. The incident remains a cautionary example of how quickly workplace disputes can escalate and how complex the fallout can be when violence, alcohol, and viral media intersect. In the absence of clearer industry standards and stronger protections for service workers, similar controversies are likely to continue emerging, leaving employees and employers alike navigating an uncertain and often unforgiving landscape.