Christine Drake, left, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Lisa Cox, Luis Lucero and Kathryn Olson meet with the media at the Federal Building.
Posted on 06/14/2007 8:37:58 PM PDT by Dan Evans
When Christine Drake worked as a Starbucks barista, the Seattle woman with psychiatric disabilities said it was the first time in her life that she "felt a sense of accomplishment."
But after two years on the job, a new manager at the Starbucks store at 425 Queen Anne Ave. N. in Seattle allegedly discriminated against Drake, decreased her hours and berated her in front of customers, according to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Lisa Cox, an EEOC lawyer, said the world's largest coffee retailer ignored Drake's requests for help and violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by not accommodating her special needs and by then firing her.
Drake, who currently is not employed, is bipolar and has major depression, borderline personality and attention deficit disorders, according to EEOC attorneys.
The EEOC on Thursday sued Starbucks in U.S. District Court, and the government wants Starbucks to pay Drake $40,000 in lost wages. The EEOC also will ask a jury, if the case goes to court, for up to $300,000 in compensatory and punitive damages, said Kathryn Olson, an EEOC supervisory trial attorney.
Starbucks said it had not been contacted by the EEOC about the lawsuit, and it had not seen a copy of the complaint.
"We cannot provide further comment at this time," the company said in a statement.
Starbucks issued its statement Thursday afternoon after being provided with a copy of the complaint by the Seattle P-I. The EEOC said it sued Starbucks only after the government was unsuccessful in reaching a voluntary settlement following meetings with the company. The EEOC said it filed the suit following an investigation that began after Drake approached the government just more than a year ago.
The suit also seeks to have Starbucks engage in training on anti-discrimination laws.
The EEOC lawsuit comes a month after Starbucks, which long has been known for its health benefits and competitive wages for employees, fired the co-founder of a union claiming to represent employees at six of its Manhattan coffee houses.
The EEOC said Drake, now 34, began working at Starbucks in September 2001, and for two years had two different managers who accommodated her by giving her additional time to study to make drinks. They also would let her practice making drinks in the Queen Anne store, and she didn't have to make coffee during peak business hours.
However, when a new manager took over in August 2003, that person -- who is not identified in the suit -- no longer provided those accommodations, the EEOC said. Drake said she was told by that manager that she was "not Starbucks material" before she was fired in May 2004.
This article is from last year. Here's the update where Starbucks settles out of court for $75,000:
Christine Drake, left, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Lisa Cox, Luis Lucero and Kathryn Olson meet with the media at the Federal Building.
...and the slower the service, the better!
Sounds vaguely like a relative of mine who was fired from a retail store when she went after a customer with a hammer. I was somewhat (pleasantly) surprised that her mother didn’t use ADA against the store.
ADA - another Bush41 legacy, isn’t it?
A vicious, lazy, manipulative, calculating psychopath misuses the corrupt US legal system to greatly enrich herself for her utter incompetence. And I guarantee you she gets big bucks from taxpayers for Social Security disablity.
However, when a new manager took over in August 2003, that person -- who is not identified in the suit -- no longer provided those accommodations.
And she still wasn't fired for another 9 months! I'm sorry but if I was store manager, I'd have fired her as well!
Let's see, in nearly two years of employment she still hadn't learned how to make drinks and when the store got slammed with business, what'd she do? Go in the break room and read a book?
Drake, who currently is not employed, is bipolar and has major depression, borderline personality and attention deficit disorders, according to EEOC attorneys.
Now I don't doubt that people have the afflictions but c'mon now, anybody can get diagnosed with any of the above if they go to a shrink and put on an act. And then they can claim that they need to be accommodated in the workplace?!?!
I'll bet she was so despised by her co-workers and regular customers that the manager was probably at his wit's end trying to work with her.
ARGHH!!! This story really ticks me off. Starbucks is a good company. They give away a lot of coffee for free to the navy (I know because I drank gallons of it during my last deployment).
“Drake, who currently is not employed, is bipolar and has major depression, borderline personality and attention deficit disorders,”
Yeah, well that psych. diagnosis would tend to be a rather significant impediment to successful functioning in an employment situation that involves interaction with the public. But hey, what do I know? The gubbmint says she should have win big bucks, they are so very enlightened!/s
A psychiatrist I know says that the so-called "borderline personalities" are the most difficult to deal with. Many have no real physical or psychiatric disorder; they are just unhappy, angry, and manipulative people who have learned how to game the system.
Yep. The moment I saw that an enormous red flag went up. Those folks are mega-Democrats.
There all gonna laugh at you!
There all gonna laugh at you!
“The EEOC said Drake, now 34, began working at Starbucks in September 2001, and for two years had two different managers who accommodated her by giving her additional time to study to make drinks. They also would let her practice making drinks in the Queen Anne store, and she didn’t have to make coffee during peak business hours.
However, when a new manager took over in August 2003, that person — who is not identified in the suit — no longer provided those accommodations, the EEOC said. Drake said she was told by that manager that she was “not Starbucks material” before she was fired in May 2004.”
Doesn’t sound like any “disorder” to me, just sounds like she’s extremely stupid. With almost 3 years under her belt, she still could not do the job she was hired to do, any manager worth their salt would fire her butt and have good reason to do it.
But of course, in this day and age, everyone is equal, no one is better, and everyone, and I mean everyone, has the right to have a job and do it as they please or else they will sue your behind and then hang around their house until the money runs out. What has happened to this once great country of mine??
Next Cho Seung-Hui’s parents will sue Virginia Tech for terminating their son without due process.
I think she is a victim of the public school trend to build "self esteem". Everyone is better than everyone else. All of our problems are caused by someone else.
After her shysters are done with her, she'll be lucky if she comes out with $30K, after attorney fees and litigation costs. Maybe they're the ones who are the real villains here, they should have said, "OK, we'll write a letter to try to get your job back, but if that doesn't work, just suck it up and try to find other work. While you still can!"
One more reason to got to Tully's Coffee...if your in Seattle.
got to = go to
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.