Posted on 02/10/2016 11:24:10 AM PST by Impala64ssa
Campaigners say tribunal finding in favour of Meseret Kumulchew highlights duty to make allowances for dyslexic staff
Starbucks has lost a disability discrimination case after it wrongly accused a dyslexic employee of falsifying documents when she had simply misread numbers she was responsible for recording.
Campaigners say the ruling highlights the duty of all employers to make allowances for staff with dyslexia.
In December, an employment tribunal found that Starbucks had victimised Meseret Kumulchew after she inaccurately recorded the water and fridge temperatures as part of her duties as a supervisor at Starbucks in Clapham, south-west London.
The tribunal heard that Starbucks accused Kumulchew of falsifying the recordings, reduced her responsibilities and ordered her to retrain. The stories you need to read, in one handy email Read more
A separate hearing to determine how much compensation Starbucks should pay will be held in the next few weeks.
Kumulchew, who is still employed by Starbucks, said she had made her bosses aware of her dyslexia, and the accusation of falsifying numbers had made her want to take her own life.
She told the BBC: “There was a point that I wanted to commit suicide. I am not a fraud. The name fraud itself shouldn’t exist for me. It’s quite serious.
“I nearly ended my life. But I had to think of my kids. I know I’m not a fraud. I just made a mistake.â€
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
Innocent mistakes will still get you fined, but they WON’T get you jail time. That’s one of the big differences between misfeasance and malfeasance. Falsifying implies deliberation, ie malfeasance. She probably was sure, but didn’t realize they she shouldn’t be, until they’ve trained themselves around it dyslexics don’t know the vision center of their brain is lying to them, and even trained up fatigue can leave people confused, or they can hit a symbol combination they’ve never hit before and don’t know how dyslexia is messing with it.
The case would have gotten to the court sooner, but the guy was suing Buckstar until his lawyer figured it out.
Thanks for that, LOL.
“Dyslexics of the World Untie!”
If it were a onesy-twosy error, I might buy misfeasance, given that she knew she had dyslexia. If it was an every day error, the benefit of that doubt is greatly reduced in my mind.
We disagree on this, to be sure. Thanks for discussing it rationally with me, and I hope I achieved the same.
And PAID afterwards.
SNORK!
True, but I suppose the argument can be made about whether or not it was intentional. In this case, if the dyslexia diagnosis is factual, then it wasn’t.
No argument about SB’s liability with inspectors and still think that she should have either been given different responsibilities or found another job.
And SB’s, in a manner of speaking, has been hoist by their own petard. They’re all for social justice, and now getting skewered by it.
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.