Posted on 02/22/2012 2:15:30 PM PST by matt1234
A man who was born with half a left arm is suing Starbucks for failing to hire him as a barista.
Eli Pierre sued the company in San Diego two weeks ago for unspecified damages.
Pierre says that during a Feb. 1 interview for a San Diego job, the store manager told him that the coffee flavoring syrups were placed high up and a one-armed man couldn't work there.
The discrimination suit claims that the former bartender was capable of doing the job but was never given a chance to fully explain his capabilities or possible accommodation as required under state law.
Starbucks says it employs many disabled persons and Pierre's disability wouldn't disqualify him. The company says his application was thoughtfully considered and disputes his version of the interview.
Just don’t say anything....then a few days later just tell him they decided to hire somebody else. If only companies would just follow this simple rule, and not divulge why they decided not to hire somebody.
No......
The plaintiff probably has always dreamed of exercising the long arm of the law.
Maybe he could be Def Leppard’s next drummer.
.270?
I’m wondering if this isn’t a “set-up” lawsuit. If the guy was a former bartender, WHY would he want to work for Starbuck’s? He’d make a hell of a lot more money bartending.
And do disability laws REQUIRE you to hire disabled people on the spot whenever they show up? Sure if you want the guy working for you, you make “reasonable accomodations”. But what if you have a stack of applications? Aren’t you allowed to pick the “best” candidate?
Scary true story - Years ago, a guy with narcolepsy showed up at a major railroad dispatch center to apply for a job as a dispatcher. After interviewing him and discovering that the man had narcolepsy, the railroad declined his application and selected another candidate.
The narcoleptic candidate sued under the ADA claiming that the railroad discriminated against him because of his “disability”. He won.
To accommodate him, the railroaf not only had to hire the man, they gad to hire another person whose sole job was to make sure that the narcoleptic stayed awake during his entire shift.
Talk about the Law of Unintended Consequences!!
Perhaps Starbucks should hire the one-armed guy as the store manager (that job should be open about now).
He could ask his girlfriend, Eileen, for a leg up and tell his lazy ass brother, Art, to quit hanging around.
Maybe his dad, Bob, could float him a loan.
He might get sympathy from his dad, Mom, who keep an eye it for him.
“Wood Eye!”
He could ask his girlfriend, Eileen, for a leg up and tell his lazy ass brother, Art, to quit hanging around.
Maybe his dad, Bob, could float him a loan.
He might get sympathy from his dad, Mom, who keep an eye it for him.
“Wood Eye!”
“Maybe he could be kept busy hanging wallpaper?”
General Patton had the right answer for those types!!
Got to hand it to him, he’s got a lot of stump trying to elbow his way to the top!
Starbucks legal arm is arguing that the man wouldn’t be able to shoulder the responsibilities of the job.
This is Callyfornia. Common sense is not so common.
Yeah...in today’s market, a manager is going to TELL someone they don’t get the job due to a disability.
My daughter-in-law asked about applying for a job.
“You can apply”, they said, “but the stack of applications is close to 3 feet thick, and we still don’t have any openings.”
All the manager had to do is say, “Thank you for applying. We will let you know if you get the job. Good day!”
NO manager - not even a Starbucks one - tells a job applicant they aren’t getting hired due to age, disability, sexual preference, etc. They just smile, say thank you...and don’t hire.
Every citizen has the right to bear arms. The government should give him a hand.
First kill the lawyers - William Shakespeare
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.