That's not a woman baby, it's a man!
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.
True. I've never met a person with Down Syndrome who didn't have a great attitude. The young woman in this story has "Crappy Attitude" written all over her face. No wonder she's depressed.
Hey, it works both ways. The barista at my local Starbucks is psychotic and serves lattes to people who aren't there. I've had free coffee there since March!
Perhaps she would do better in a less stressful position. The EEOC can jump off a bridge for all I care.
I tolerate but am against both the ADA and its government service counterpart Section 508. "Reasonable accommodation" is a floating standard that flies in the face of constitutional protections.
That's not a woman baby, it's a man!
Great. Now Starbucks will have to hire people with bad attitudes. One of the things I like about the place is that the clerks are almost always friendly. The liberals know how to screw EVERYTHING up.
That said, it's nice to see them get a taste of their own liberal medicine.
I suspect that the new manager just didn't think the accomodations were working out. Even if you suffer from all the above problems you shouldn't still be in a training mode after two years. The fact is that she probably was just not earning what they were paying her. IOW even with the accomodations, she still could not perform the essential functions of the job.
No good deed goes unpunished. Here Starbucks accomodated her to bring her on and when the accomodations didn't work out, they discovered that for all their good will all they did was buy a lawsuit.
Better living through litigation! /sarc
The new manager even gave her from August thuru May (ten months) to grow up and become a regular employee.
'Than anyone'? I don't think so. Not after considering the humans that work $tarbuck$ in Chuckton, SC. Yes, some are attractive but others are ... alternative humans. I brew a mean Mr. Coffee and don't have to face to what humanity has descended.
What I gathered from the article was that she was able to meet essential job functions when given reasonable accomodation (the practice time, scheduled during non-peak hours, etc). I don't see a company bending over backwards - I see a company making an effort (i.e. the first two managers), then came the new manager, and suddenly she couldn't cut it.
I work in HR - I've investigated a ton of claims like this. 99 times out of 100, the employee could not meet essential job functions even with accomodation. I have red flags going up on this one. If an employee can perform with accomodation for two years, then suddenly they can't with a new manager ... well, that usually tells me that Mr. Manager was being unreasonable.
I wish I could've investigated this claim. Would've been an interesting one.
You're right - they didn't have to accomodate her, but they did. By making the accomodations, they basically proved they could provide her with a job. They kinda shot themselves in the foot with this one.
Good point. I also wonder what kind of warnings they gave her - verbal, written, etc. How it escalated to termination. The article makes it sound like her termination just happened. I doubt that was the case.
Yes, but I suspect that even with the accomodations she could still not perform the essential functions of the job. They gave her two years and she was still at below entry level for that position. Even the ADA does not require that you employ people who, despite reasonable accomodations, cannot do the essential functions of the job. The problem is that when you hire these people and give them accomodations, you have, for all intents and purposes, hired yourself a lawsuit.
It is lawsuits like these that hurt the people the ADA was intending to protect.
I Am Sam.
Sean Penn was incredible in that movie.
And we here at Free Republic have given you since Oct 22, 1999 to learn how to spell "through" and become a regular poster. You're fired! Turn in your keyboard. :-)
Jeez, it's a freakin' press conference. You'd have thought she'd put on some makeup.
Or at least drawn her some eyebrows.
One of the problems with the ADA is that "reasonable accomodation" has become something far different. Initially the bill pretended that minimal expenditures ($300) were all that were required. Now apparent the sky is the limit.
For two years this woman did not have to do the job and the managers (probably out of fear of the lawyers) did nothing about the situation. Then a manager came in who decided enough was enough.
I mean she could not even make the basic drinks. Now I suppose she could have been kept on to sweep floors, clean things etc but that would have only produced another lawsuit when she decided she could do more. The ADA is an absurdity and should be scrapped.
Because of ADA, for example, the Chicago Transit Authority has put wheelchair lifts on all buses at the cost of millions of dollars. I ride the bus every work day and have seen less than a handful of riders in wheelchairs (what kind of idiot would go out in a wheelchair in a Chicago winter?) who can call CTA and have a special bus pick them up at their homes or jobs. Thus, the per ride cost is astronomical probably in the hundreds of dollars. Sickening waste of public resources.
Isn't she?
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.