Starbucks sued after firing barista who happens to be a dwarf

[Teh One Who Knocks]

by Daniel Borunda \ El Paso Times


The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit against Starbucks Coffee Co. on behalf of a woman who claims she was fired from an El Paso coffee shop because she is a dwarf.

The EEOC in the lawsuit claims that Starbucks failed to provide reasonable accommodations for Elsa Sallard, who was fired from her job as a barista.

The lawsuit, filed last week in U.S. District Court in El Paso, claims Sallard was terminated after three days because of her disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Starbucks officials could not be reached for comment Monday night. Starbucks has locations around the world, including at least a dozen in El Paso. The coffee shop is not specified in the lawsuit.

According to the lawsuit, Sallard was hired as a barista, a position with a job description stating no prior experience was necessary. Sallard was hired July 27, 2009.

Sallard, according to the lawsuit, requested a stool or a small step ladder to help her do her job such as working the cash register and preparing beverages. Starbucks allegedly refused.

On July 30, 2009, Sallard was fired after Starbucks allegedly claimed she would be a danger to customers and employees, according to the lawsuit.

The EEOC is asking for a jury trial. The amount of compensation, if any, would be determined at trial.

[DemonGeminiX]

I bet they wished they got her that stool now.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

I bet they wished they got her that stool now.

Only if she's actually telling the truth ;)

[Deepsepia]

I bet they wished they got her that stool now.

Funny.

Starbucks is a very "progressive" employer . . . full medical benefits even for part time workers.

EEOC and the mini-barrista will lose this one. The problem with a stool or a ladder is that folks fall off them-- "falls" are responsible for hundreds of thousands of ER visits each year. You don't have to be very high up . . . even a stepstool will do it.

"Reasonable accommodation" doesn't include stuff that's dangerous, and perching our little coffee midget on a stepstool is dangerous.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Funny.

Starbucks is a very "progressive" employer . . . full medical benefits even for part time workers.

EEOC and the mini-barrista will lose this one. The problem with a stool or a ladder is that folks fall off them-- "falls" are responsible for hundreds of thousands of ER visits each year. You don't have to be very high up . . . even a stepstool will do it.

"Reasonable accommodation" doesn't include stuff that's dangerous, and perching our little coffee midget on a stepstool is dangerous.

Never thought of that, excellent point :thumbsup:

[DemonGeminiX]

You both are very wrong.

The step ladder may be dangerous, but a reasonable attempt must be made for them to provide accomodations for the disabled person in question to do their job. That's federal law. Starbucks could have suggested an alternative or made alternative arrangements, such as lowering the aforementioned high items in question, instead of firing her. The midget is going to win this case, and the both of you are going to be spitting venom about the injustice of it all.

Wanna argue further? We'll just wait and see what happens. ;)

[Deepsepia]

You both are very wrong.

The step ladder may be dangerous, but a reasonable attempt must be made for them to provide accomodations for the disabled person in question to do their job. That's federal law. Starbucks could have suggested an alternative or made alternative arrangements, such as lowering the aforementioned high items in question, instead of firing her. The midget is going to win this case, and the both of you are going to be spitting venom about the injustice of it all.

Wanna argue further? We'll just wait and see what happens. ;)

We'll see.

I don't have much contact with employment law (thank god, its a nightmare), so I can't say much beyond two questions

Is being short a "disability" that is entitled to ADA protection? (I don't know)

Does "reasonable accommodation" include stuff that's dangerous? (I don't think so)

[Muddy]

You both are very wrong.

The step ladder may be dangerous, but a reasonable attempt must be made for them to provide accomodations for the disabled person in question to do their job. That's federal law. Starbucks could have suggested an alternative or made alternative arrangements, such as lowering the aforementioned high items in question, instead of firing her. The midget is going to win this case, and the both of you are going to be spitting venom about the injustice of it all.

Wanna argue further? We'll just wait and see what happens. ;)

If I had to do all that shit to hire an employee, then that's one employee I wouldn't be hiring..

[DemonGeminiX]

We'll see.

I don't have much contact with employment law (thank god, its a nightmare), so I can't say much beyond two questions

Is being short a "disability" that is entitled to ADA protection? (I don't know)

Does "reasonable accommodation" include stuff that's dangerous? (I don't think so)

Deep, they could've found another way, or at least made some kind of attempt to find another way. As far as I can see, with the details provided here, unless something else comes out that changes the way this story currently looks, Starbucks is gonna eat it on this one. I have tons of experience in ADA law. It's in my best interests. I will be completely and utterly surprised if Starbucks wins this case, given what's written here.

The smart thing would've been not to hire her at all, but to deny her application in such a way that it doesn't look like discrimination. Believe it or not, a lot of companies are really good at that. I'm surprised Starbucks isn't.

[DemonGeminiX]

If I had to do all that shit to hire an employee, then that's one employee I wouldn't be hiring..

And if you actually said that and it was documented, you would be in front of a judge so fast on discrimination charges, your head would spin.

[Muddy]

And if you actually said that and it was documented, you would be in front of a judge so fast on discrimination charges.

I think I'm a little smarter than to do that. :)

But really I wouldn't rebuild a restaurant to suit one employee..

[DemonGeminiX]

I think I'm a little smarter than to do that. :)

But really I wouldn't rebuild a restaurant to suit one employee..

It's not building a restaurant to suit one employee, it's keeping you from being sued. And believe it or not, there are probably tons of ways to make accomodations for this person at low cost to the company.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

It's not building a restaurant to suit one employee, it's keeping you from being sued. And believe it or not, there are probably tons of ways to make accomodations for this person at low cost to the company.

Have her killed and make the body disappear :tup:

[Muddy]

With the enormous labor pool out there right now, it's an added liability and cost that's hard to justify. She is probably more suited for a job that doesn't have 5 foot high counters... Just like I'm not suited to be a bean picker.. They aren't going to start growing all the beans in elevated containers so I can have a job... They're going to hire someone shorter that is better suited.

[DemonGeminiX]

With the enormous labor pool out there right now, it's an added liability and cost that's hard to justify. She is probably more suited for a job that doesn't have 5 foot high counters... Just like I'm not suited to be a bean picker.. They aren't going to start growing all the beans in elevated containers so I can have a job... They're going to hire someone shorter that is better suited.

Which is why I'm surprised they hired her to begin with. She should've heard "I'm sorry, that position has already been filled" when she applied.

[Muddy]

Agreed.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

But really I wouldn't rebuild a restaurant to suit one employee..

How about build one to suit one customer who decides to sue you? ;)



Supreme Court won't stop disabled man's lawsuit against Chipotle over counter height
The Associated Press


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court won't stop a disabled man's lawsuit against Chipotle Mexican Grill for having counters too high for a person in a wheelchair.

The high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from the Denver-based chain.

Maurizio Antoninetti sued when he found that he could not see the Chipotle food preparers because of the height of the counters. A federal judge ruled against him, saying Antoninetti had sued dozens of other places for access violations and dropped the suit after received cash settlements.

The judge said Antoninetti was insincere about wanting to return and eat at Chipotle.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the judge's ruling, saying Antoninetti's litigation history cannot be used against him.

The case is Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. v. Maurizio Antoninetti, 10-1051.

[Muddy]

Did the guy win?

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Not sure what happens now...that story is from last month...the original lawsuit was last year some time

[DemonGeminiX]

That's really disgusting. I hate people like that.

[Muddy]

I had a guy apply one time, and 2 feet in the door he handed me a piece of documentation from the state saying he had a brain injury and because of some law# blah blah I had to give him an equal chance at getting the job.. (even though because of his disability he could not perform the job up to par with everyone else).

[Acid Trip]

Which is why I'm surprised they hired her to begin with. She should've heard "I'm sorry, that position has already been filled" when she applied.

So lying is better? If you don't want to hire someone you don't have to give a reason, you simply don't hire them. I'm the "hire and fire" for my department and I've NEVER had to give a reason why I didn't hire someone.

[Deepsepia]

@Lance. Interesting on the counter height/patron case. That's a slightly different standard-- when you offer services to the public, you can't discriminate, but when you hire, you can hire folks who're appropriate for the job. Basketball teams can hire tall people, for example . . .

I'm looking at just two points in the article



Sallard, according to the lawsuit, requested a stool or a small step ladder to help her do her job such as working the cash register and preparing beverages. Starbucks allegedly refused.

On July 30, 2009, Sallard was fired after Starbucks allegedly claimed she would be a danger to customers and employees, according to the lawsuit.

She requested an accommodation that is dangerous, both to her and to others. (space behind the counter is limited, and you don't want people tripping over stuff)

Starbucks said "no". That seems right to me.

Not clear what happened next -- did she request some other accommodation? Now I'm kinda curious. Reading the EEOC's own press release (at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-16-11d.cfm ) they claim she's not just "short" but suffers from a disability, "dwarfism", which makes her protected under the ADA.



According to the EEOC’s suit, Elsa Sallard has a physical impairment, dwarfism. She was hired by Starbucks to work in a customer service position July 2009, but was only allowed to train for 3 days before she was fired. The job description for the barista position stated that no prior experience was required. Soon after being hired by Starbucks, Sallard asked to use a stool or small stepladder to perform the essential functions of preparing orders and serving customers at the counter. Starbucks disregarded Sallard’s request and refused to consider her use of a stool or stepladder, the EEOC said. On the same day that Sallard requested the accommodation, Starbucks terminated her employment, claiming that she could pose a danger to customers and employees.

Such alleged conduct violates Title I of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits employers from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities in hiring, firing, job application procedures, advancement, compensation, job training and other terms and conditions of employment. The ADA requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to employees’ and applicants’ disabilities as long as this does not pose an undue hardship. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.


Starbucks must have a case they think they can win here . . . this is the kind of thing where, if you're offered a settlement and you think there's a risk of losing at trial, you take the settlement. I don't have experience with EEOC stuff, but I do know litigation strategy-- a case like this is going to cost far more than buying off the employee would have cost, somewhat at corporate general counsel level would have had to say "this one we fight".

[Teh One Who Knocks]

@Lance. Interesting on the counter height/patron case. That's a slightly different standard-- when you offer services to the public, you can't discriminate, but when you hire, you can hire folks who're appropriate for the job. Basketball teams can hire tall people, for example . . .

Oh I know, I was just pointing out that no matter what you do, there is going to be someone who will try and sue you for something in this country.

[RBP]

perching our little coffee midget on a stepstool is dangerous.

:lmao:

[DemonGeminiX]

I'm telling ya, Deep, Starbucks is not going to win this.

[Deepsepia]

Oh I know, I was just pointing out that no matter what you do, there is going to be someone who will try and sue you for something in this country.

Wasn't being critical . . . is interesting to see the two cases together. I think the guy wins and the barrista loses . . .

Interesting that these are both "progressive" companies . . . you can bet there are some pissed-off people in Seattle and Denver.

The thing is, this stuff only applies to big companies. . . its one of the reasons that big companies have hordes of HR people, because the risk of being sued is just huge.

[Acid Trip]

Can I sue a company because their counters are too low? I'm tall and it hurts my back to constantly bend over. Incoming Lawsuit!

[DemonGeminiX]

Can I sue a company because their counters are too low? I'm tall and it hurts my back to constantly bend over. Incoming Lawsuit!

Do you have a legitimate disability documented by a legitimate physician?

[Muddy]

Do you have a legitimate disability documented by a legitimate physician?


Have you never seen acid trip?

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/08/12/big_fish_wideweb__430x207,1.jpg

[DemonGeminiX]

Have you never seen acid trip?

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/08/12/big_fish_wideweb__430x207,1.jpg

:huh:

That might be something my mind would conjure up during an acid trip.

:P

[Acid Trip]

Have you never seen acid trip?

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/08/12/big_fish_wideweb__430x207,1.jpg

:rofl:

That's exactly how I feel when I'm trippin! I'm 6'6 and for some reason acid makes me feel like I grow about 2 feet taller. I often get stuck standing in the middle of the living room thinking "why the hell did I get such small furniture?"

[lost in melb.]

It's not building a restaurant to suit one employee, it's keeping you from being sued. And believe it or not, there are probably tons of ways to make accomodations for this person at low cost to the company.

And morals aside, that's what it boils down to...


( I thought that this smiley was pertinent) :beer:

[lost in melb.]

:rofl:

That's exactly how I feel when I'm trippin! I'm 6'6 and for some reason acid makes me feel like I grow about 2 feet taller. I often get stuck standing in the middle of the living room thinking "why the hell did I get such small furniture?"

I haven't taken acid for at least a decade, but I do pip your height by one measly inch. It is good fun isn't it :mrgreen:

[Muddy]

Do you freaks ever get any pussy because girls are curious if your dicks are any bigger?

[FBD]

And if you actually said that and it was documented, you would be in front of a judge so fast on discrimination charges, your head would spin.

another of the myriad ways american society is destroying itself.

(actually, its progressive society destroying america, but who's keeping track? americans accepting this overt PC bullshit deserve to inherit a country in decline. )

[Acid Trip]

Do you freaks ever get any pussy because girls are curious if your dicks are any bigger?

Dunno. That would be an interesting trip into the psyche of woman though...