Submitting a record such as this without ensuring it is correct *IS* falsifying the record. That record is Starbucks’ only defense against fines from inspectors, and by her recording incorrect data (apparently, multiple times) she puts the store at risk.
The store cannot use her dyslexia as a shield against its own liability, and now she gets to use it as a weapon against their bank account. If she cannot do the job, she should have not taken it.
Starbucks, in this case, is damned if they do, and damned if they don’t.
True, but I suppose the argument can be made about whether or not it was intentional. In this case, if the dyslexia diagnosis is factual, then it wasn’t.
No argument about SB’s liability with inspectors and still think that she should have either been given different responsibilities or found another job.
And SB’s, in a manner of speaking, has been hoist by their own petard. They’re all for social justice, and now getting skewered by it.