Second you posted " And it sounds like the Starbuck’s solution is to ask the landlord to move the handicapped parking away from the store."
What else is that to mean? *rme*
you speculated that the person who parked in the handicapped parking space was an employee
From the story: " "threatening the well-being of a customer or partner (employee)." (Do I need to put the word 'employee' in bold for you? "...customer or ... employee" is a disjunctive which suggests the illegal parker could be either a customer or an employee. Thus, my speculation that the manager got so bent out of shape because an employee was whining.
If he or she was an employee he or she should have known not to park there.
Not really a logical statement on your part. Because of the signage, ANYONE should have known not to park there if they weren't handicapped. Employment status shouldn't have any impact on whether one was willfully violating the law.
Second you posted " And it sounds like the Starbuck’s solution is to ask the landlord to move the handicapped parking away from the store."
Why would they need to work with the landlord to change the parking arrangement if they weren't planning to move the handicapped parking to another part of the lot. It is clear from this statement " Starbucks is also working with the landlord of the property where this store is located to improve the parking situation. It is our goal to provide a warm, friendly and positive experience for all of our customers," that they want the landlord to re-arrange the parking in some manner. Since enforcing the current arrangement would be 'warm, friendly and positive' for the handicapped customers, they must want to make things warm, friendly and positive by moving the signs out of the way of the lazy bums who are healthy but don't want to have to walk a few extra feet to get overpriced, bitter, coffee.
Starbucks shareholder, by any chance?