Grande canyon
Recently a suit was filed by ex-barista Christine Drake against her ex-employer, Starbucks. The Seattle woman, who has long struggled with psychiatric disorders, felt a deep sense of accomplishment about the fact that she held her job there for two years. It was very meaningful to her to keep working, despite her illness. And we all know how important work is at a time like that.
Now the EEOC is backing her claims that she was discriminated against and that the company violated the American With Disabilities Act, which I'd like to remind everyone means you're entitled to reasonable accommodations to deal with your illness. The EEOC is filing for $40,000 in lost wages for Drake, who was fired for not being "Starbucks material."
Dear God—what exactly is Starbucks material? The frowning server who corrects your speech when you violate the coffee code and say "medium" instead of "venti" or whatever? Get over yourselves. You're making coffee.
Comments
I'm sorry to hear about the hypothetical Liz-o-meter being down - I hope things improve soon.
I sure hope Starbucks loses this case - even if it means lattes have to cost a little bit more. That provision of the ADA requiring "reasonable accommodations" is potentially very useful, if it is enforced. I heard on some recent internet radio broadcast that violations of the ADA for psychiatric disabilities haven't been prosecuted - (or perhaps "litigated" is the right word here) - as much as violations for other kinds of disabilities. This sounds like a positive exception.
Big corporations like Starbucks (or at least some of their managers) seem to sometimes make up job requirements for their employees that aren't really necessary for the job. Sometimes they want to fire people for things that are just a matter of personal style and not really that important (I once heard about someone getting fired from a job for not having a "bubbly" enough personality).
This seems like a case that should be relatively easy for the EEOC to win, what with the main change preceding the firing being a change of managers and not anything that the employee herself did. I only wish that this kind of action was more the rule, rather than the exception.
I think that preventing people from having even a halfway-decent job is one of the main ways that American society tells individuals they are outsiders, that they don't count, and that their very existence is invalid.
Posted by: Kent | September 25, 2006 07:37 PM