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.
"..yes. But you can't tell the customers that..."
=======================
Christine, honey, he didn't have to!
Me: I'm guessing her entire tenure there was a burden on her co-employees. For every are where this woman was defective, someone else had to pick up the slack, "peak hours" or not.
I think the law firm that represents her should offer her a position as a clerk. This way we can see this law firm is doing more than representing her but giving her a chance at a new life. Let's see them accomodate her.
A business should not have to do the above. Nor should it have to lie about why it fires people, but they would have done better to wait for her to commit an infraction and then fire her for that infraction.
It is a big debate in our local schools about "mainstreaming" special needs students. Apparently, these students have paperwork that enables them to have special tests, special homework, and special classroom requirements. (All easier.) Sadly, these concessions will give these students good to excellent grades, and they do make the students "feel good" for a while in high school. Afterwards, though, it is a tragic thing to see some of the shock and disappointment at not being able to compete. Recently, one girl who had an A/B experience in her classes, attended a local state college and totally bombed to the point that folks had to wonder what really was the kindest way to handle these things. I see the government, in this Starbuck's case, trying to simulate in the work world those special concessions the government requires in the secondary school world. Starbucks, however, has to make a profit. They cannot do it with some employees not required to work when it gets busy. That is economic insanity for a business. I remember in my youth doing ministry at a school for the blind. They had created work within the capacity of their clients. They were able to market those products and pay wages commensurate with the profitability of their enterprise. Obviously, government subsidies assisted other areas of the school for the blind.
On most job applications there is a question whether the applicant needs any special accommodations to do the job. It is at that point disabilities are disclosed and if not the employer can assume none is required unless the disability arises after employment.
Sounds like she did not tell anyone of the disability and the previous managers were doing her a favor that has turned into a supposed entitlement.
I don't know what this world is coming to, if an employer can't set standards of performance for a job.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It really is getting ridiculous, people who excel wind up carrying the load for others who can't do the job but receive the same pay. This is exactly what goes on where I have worked for almost four years, whatever happened to merit pay based on actual performance?
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."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And in the same way that ham, bacon and Jimmy Dean sausage all resemble "pork".
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.