[P-Marlowe]

The real problem here is that Starbucks didn't have to accomodate her in the first place. They could have refused to hire her if her condition was such that she could not perform the job without reasonable accomodations and quite frankly the accomodations they gave here were more than reasonable. She didn't have to make coffee during peak business hours (which would create additional burdens on her co-employees), she was given additional time to study to make drinks (which means she was in actuality getting paid more than her co employees for doing less work) and they let her practice making drinks which meant that she was still a trainee after two years when most employees are given a 60 to 90 day probation period.

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.

[Apple Blossom]

Better living through litigation! /sarc

[scan59]

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.

The new manager even gave her from August thuru May (ten months) to grow up and become a regular employee.

[kemathen7]

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.

[-=SoylentSquirrel=-]

You: "...She didn't have to make coffee during peak business hours (which would create additional burdens on her co-employees)..."

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.