Posted on 09/18/2006 1:20:03 PM PDT by Cagey
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.
LOL @ "Cybil ".
"I never knew when I was coming or going!"
My uncle felt the same way when he mixed up his viagra and ex-lax.
I don't know what this world is coming to, if an employer can't set standards of performance for a job.
Feel sorry for the girl if she has problems, but not every job is suitable to be filled by every person. I can't believe that every job has to be structured to accomodate anyone defined as "disabled" by the ADA law.
This seems too strange to file a lawsuit about. If she can't service the customer properly, doesn't an employer have a right to change her work or dismiss her if she can't do the job?
I think this lawsuit opens more cans of worms.
Usually I side with employers on most issues like this, but in this case, I'm having some sympathy for the employee (I will say my only knowledge of the case is whats in this article).
So the employee is a little mixed up in the head. I think that taking a little extra time to make coffee, and not having her make drinks during peak hours is not a big deal. And I can't imagine that Starbucks has people banging down their doors asking to work for them. I can only assume she was a good employee during the two years the accomodations were made.
I think good ol' Bucky's got themselves a manager who takes making coffee a bit too seriously. Is it worth hundreds of thousands of dollars? Probably not, but she's entitled to something. Starbucks made a boo-boo.
In order to discriminate against someone BECAUSE of their disability, one would have to know that the person had a disability in the first place. It is quite possible that the symptoms of a combination of "bipolar, major depression, borderline personality and attention deficit disorders" resemble the more common workplace disorder known as "laziness."
If it were a taxpayer funded job, the unions could probably protect her from being fired. But in the private sector, she can eventually be put on the chopping block for lack of performance (especially when new management appraises her work).
They add a couple new ones and drop a few every 6 months or so. It's a full time job just to keep up with it all.... Ummmm, Oh wait....
Sounds like my ex-wife.
Having a bi-polar ADHD teenage son my wife and I have gone through many ups and down. I'll watch the case with interest.
That's great!
And her photo reminds me of a line from the great film, Uncle Buck:
"Here's a quarter. Go downtown, and have a rat gnaw that thing off your face!"
Discrimination law is certainly not an area of expertise (nor do I ever wish it to be so), but it would seem to me that Starbucks could not plausibly deny knowledge of the plaintiff's diagnoses of bipolar disorder with depression on these facts. Specifically, it seems that Starbucks previously made accomodations for her - accomodations which, if I understand correctly, would require medical documentation.
I would give her a day and see how she performs, maybe two to allow for just having a bad day possibility, then demote her to dishwasher if she couldn't cut it. If she couldn't make do there, she would be out of there pure and simple.
If you can't do the essential job functions, even with reasonable accomodation, then you can't do the job, period. It would not be safe to assume that she was doing well in the first two years. I would be safer to assume that the previous manager never documented her as not being up to par. Starbucks may get screwed on this one.
You apparently read a different article than I. The one I read showed an operation which bent over backward trying to get this employee up to speed and never could so it cut its losses. The nutcase was not too nutty not to find a lawyer to harass the company.
If you had a medical condition that would affect your work performance, it would need to be made known to your direct supervisor. It sounds like they more than accomodated her limitations so that she could work to the best of her ability.
I'm not curious how her manager found out about her condition, but more how did her NEW manager NOT find out? I can only assume that the way WE are finding out was because the suit was filed and that makes it public information. If that's not the case, then there is a major HIPPA violation going on here.
You'd be surprised. When I was out of work for a couple of months and beginning to get desperate, I applied at Starbucks. They never called me. I was probably "overqualified".
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.