Starbucks gets lawsuit for firing a dwarf in Texas

[Feuer Frei!]

THE Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in the US is suing Starbucks for firing a dwarf who asked for a stool to perform her job as a barista at an El Paso, Texas shop. An EEOC statement said the lawsuit was filed today in federal court in El Paso.
It alleges that Starbucks fired Elsa Sallard after three days of training because it deemed she'd pose a danger to customers and coworkers. The EEOC contends Starbucks' actions violated the Americans With Disabilities Act.
The agency also seeks lost wages and compensatory damages for Ms Sallard and a court order that Starbucks adopt policies to correct and prevent disability discrimination.
Starbucks said in a statement that their policies provide for equal employment opportunities and strictly prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability.


SOURCE (http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/starbucks-gets-lawsuit-for-firing-a-dwarf-in-texas/story-e6frfku0-1226058098500)

[FIREWALL]

So. It looks like Starbucks was trying to give her the short end of the stick and, got caught. :yep:

Good for her. :up:

[magic452]

And how big would the law suit be when she fell off the stool?
Good for her.
Magic

[Anthony W.]

Why hire a short person for a job that requires standing behind a bar?

Starbucks = dumb for hiring her in the first place

The woman = dumb for applying

The average population = 3x taller than a dwarf

The average dwarf = smart enough not to apply for a job that requires standing behind a counter

The entire situation = really dumb

[Feuer Frei!]

Why hire a short person for a job that requires standing behind a bar?
Lots of places hire 'challenged' people, wether physically-challenged or mentally challenged.
Some hire for the wrong reasons, ie they only hire these people because it makes them look good to the public and the media, other places hire them because they either are part of a community program which hires challenged people or they have a contract with the local disability recruitment company that outsources them.
As for hiring that person for that particular role?
It may seem a little lacking on foresight or the wrong person for the wrong job but, what if that dwarf was a gun barista?
Best dam coffee in the state?
Also if that dwarf had all the credentials and there was simply no-one else suitable for that role?
Many many reasons for the why's and how's and if's.
Good on her for getting the job, bad bad Starbuck's for discriminating.

Starbucks = dumb for hiring her in the first placeNot at all, see above.
We can't take everything on face value. They may well have had all the right intentions. Certainly not in the end.

She = dumb for applyingThat's a judgment call that is not warranted and backed up by facts.
Good on her for getting that job! If i was related to her, i would have motivated her to apply for that job, no physical or mental boundaries should ever hinder a person for getting a job!
Even the 'challenged' have a right to apply for jobs that able-bodied people can do (yes, yes, ofc within reason but let's keep it simple for this debate and case) and that all 'challenged' people should never feel discriminated against.

The average population = 3x taller than a dwarfAnd so what? Like i said, and i recruit people in restaurants, would i hire a dwarf who could run rings around a tall person? You bet i would.
So, moot point.

The average dwarf = smart enough not to apply for a job that requires standing behind a counterYou seem to have a problem with dwarfs applying for jobs.
So what if they want to apply for barista positions?
Or anything else for that matter.
Let them, it's their choice and God-given right to!
Just like us tall people.

The entire situation = really dumbThe only thing that's dumb here is Starbuck's ineffectiveness to support and assist the staff member in full-filling their role to the best their abilities.
Nurture and assist and support your staff!
That's what i do in my restaurant.
DON'T DISCRIMINATE ON THE ACCOUNT OF SOMEONE THAT'S EITHER PHYSICALLY OR MENTALLY CHALLENGED!

[magic452]

First off I'm all for employing handicapped people and giving them a chance and making reasonable adjustments to assist them in doing their job but there are limits to what work they are suited for.

Searbucks was not too cleaver in hiring a person who needs a stool to do her job, now a small stool in easy enough to accommodate her needs but if she falls with a hot cup of coffee in her hand and scolds either herself, a fellow employee or worse yet a customer there will be a big lawsuit as McDonald's found out. If someone trips over the stool same result.

We really don't know the particulars in the case but the lawsuit stands out in my mind. She just may have a very good case but the stool is or maybe problematic. Depends on the layout of the store I guess.

What I would like to have seen would be for Srarbuck's find a more suitable position for her. Never having been in a Starbuck's I don't know what that position would be but there must be something. Handicapped people often make very good employes because they work very hard to make up for any shortcomings they may have. I've seen it many times.

Good on her for applying for the job, bad judgement on Starbuck's for hiring her for a job for which she was not suited. Not bad on Starbuck's for discriminating as they did hire her in the first place. Pood judgement perhaps but not discrimination.

Bad on anyone that discriminates against anyone just because they have been dealt a bad hand. If they can do the job give them a shot, they may surprise you.

Magic

[Feuer Frei!]

Discrimination can happen when firing someone. Not only when deciding against hiring someone.
Also, let us not forget that the person in question ISN'T handicapped.
The person, as far as the article indicates, is a dwarf. Short, yes, but able-bodied.
Or so it would appear.
Now, as for the part about the job not being suitable?
2 Points.
Starbuck's stuffed up twice then didn't they?
1) At the time of the interviewing, (if there was any) they would have realised that the person applying was shorter than an average person. Ie they could have made that decision right there and then and not hired. IF that barista position was in fact purely and wholy and soly a barista position, ie ONLY doing coffees.
2) Upon hiring and training (for 3 days the article said) did the company make all reasonable efforts to support and make suitable modifications to it's furniture and espresso machine so that the employee would be able to complete her duties both professionally and safely? If not, then why not? If not, then why hire her?

Now, lastly, and correct me if i am wrong here, but is a dwarf technically or medically 'labelled' a disabled person?
Because of the height? I would think that if a dwarf is able-bodied but height is not of normal appearance then should that person be tagged as a disabled person?
I find that strange.
I know that the article i linked refers on a few occasions to the word disabled.

[GoldenRivet]

Its not just "dwarfs".

I went to a subway a while back, the girl behind the counter was about 5' tall on the button.

I couldnt see her face for count of the "sneeze guard" so i had no idea what she looked like until we got to the checkout portion of the counter. it was like talking to the top of this little subway hat.

If you ask me, - the smart thing to do for these shops that require workers to operate behind such a counter would be to install a little spring loaded fold down step behind the counter that elevates the worker about 10-12 inches off the floor.

the step would be designed to automatically fold back up when weight is removed from it.

we have to install ramps, and rails for various handicaps, braille for the blind, create special parking places for handicapped individuals... is it unreasonable to expect to accommodate individuals who might be on the short side?

i certainly dont think so

[Skybird]

If I understand it correctly, the guy with the vertical handicap received three days of training for the job, and just after that asked, and got fired.

If you discriminate a dwarf, you don't give him a chance first by letting him in, and you don'T give him three days of job traning first.

To me this smells like just another case of this modern contemporary special mindset at work that I love so very much.

Handicaps or not, employees must make sure they fulfill needed criterions to do a job. That'S how it is. If the physical appearance of somebody is such that he/she doe snot fit into a given job, he/she is better up with finding another one more fitting. The same is true for educational preconditions, and gender.

We push these equality-rights into absurd extremes. Healthy reason is what I would prefer in almost every case.

In america, the law system additionally makes it too easy to file the most absurd cases, it seems,a lömost with fairy-tale sums of money mentioned. Remember that judge from some years ago, who sued a Chinese washer for having lost his trousers, and demanding compensation for the psychic pain that caused him, I think it was several hundreds of thosuands of dollars, eh? The Chinese washer had to close his shop over it. Either that judge was an azz, or it all was a staged act to illustrate a fundamental problem.

[Feuer Frei!]

The guy is a she, Skybird :salute:

[Skybird]

The guy is a she, Skybird :salute:
Differing genders is a form of sexual discrimination. For the same reason we already have abandoned the terms father and mother, and replaced them with "das Elter 1" and "das Elter 2" (neutral article) or "parent 1" and "parent 2".

:know:

[Rilder]

She should of flooded the Starbucks with Magma. :O:

Either that or unleash the HFS on them.

[magic452]

Being too short to be able to perform her duties is indeed a handicap.
Being short is not a disability and I never said it was. You are the only one talking about disabled.

I'm 5'11" 200 pounds. As far as being a Thoroughbred racing jockey I am handicapped. Can I claim Discrimination for being unable to find employment as a jockey. By your standards I can and the Thoroughbred Racing Association must make adjustments to accommodate me. Ridiculous yes but not all that far from what you are saying.

Handicapped people need to work just like everyone else and I support all efforts to do so. Read my post and put it in context. I really feel for the girl she is out there trying to work and pay her way and not live off welfare or something. I support efforts to see she gets an even chance.

If you will reread my post I most certainly did not say that Starbuck's was acting in a very responsible way quit the opposite. They handled it very badly. The girl should not have been hired in the first place. All the girl did was ask for a stool, simple enough but the stool could be a safety issue.
Should Starbuck's be required to modify their store to accommodate her.
Depends on what would be required I would think. Would the modifications be a safety issue for other employees? Probability not but maybe.

Should they be required to do the modifications? Maybe they should but if it's very expensive it will be the last time they give someone with a problem a job if they can possibility get out of it, not really the outcome you're looking for in the big picture. They did give her a chance but it didn't work out, they rightly or wrongly fired her. This is not good for anybody. Now they are being sued, win or lose they will be far less likely to repeat the mistake, you won't see any Challenged employes at that or many other Starbuck's. That is the reality of life, not necessarily pretty but reality.

Personally I would not be too surprised if the real reason for firing her was that some jackass customers complained about her looks. But you would have a hard time proving it.

Magic

[Feuer Frei!]

Being too short to be able to perform her duties is indeed a handicap.
Being short is not a disability and I never said it was. You are the only one talking about disabled.

I'm 5'11" 200 pounds. As far as being a Thoroughbred racing jockey I am handicapped. Can I claim Discrimination for being unable to find employment as a jockey. By your standards I can and the Thoroughbred Racing Association must make adjustments to accommodate me. Ridiculous yes but not all that far from what you are saying.

Handicapped people need to work just like everyone else and I support all efforts to do so. Read my post and put it in context. I really feel for the girl she is out there trying to work and pay her way and not live off welfare or something. I support efforts to see she gets an even chance.

If you will reread my post I most certainly did not say that Starbuck's was acting in a very responsible way quit the opposite. They handled it very badly. The girl should not have been hired in the first place. All the girl did was ask for a stool, simple enough but the stool could be a safety issue.
Should Starbuck's be required to modify their store to accommodate her.
Depends on what would be required I would think. Would the modifications be a safety issue for other employees? Probability not but maybe.

Should they be required to do the modifications? Maybe they should but if it's very expensive it will be the last time they give someone with a problem a job if they can possibility get out of it, not really the outcome you're looking for in the big picture. They did give her a chance but it didn't work out, they rightly or wrongly fired her. This is not good for anybody. Now they are being sued, win or lose they will be far less likely to repeat the mistake, you won't see any Challenged employes at that or many other Starbuck's. That is the reality of life, not necessarily pretty but reality.

Personally I would not be too surprised if the real reason for firing her was that some jackass customers complained about her looks. But you would have a hard time proving it.

Magic
Magic, i wasn't attacking you, i was merely pointing out that the article i linked mentions disabled.
And there are a few mentions in posts which use the word disabled.
Which she isn't.
That is all.
I did read your post and agree with it as well.
It's a different point of view which isn't all that dissimilar from mine.

[Herr-Berbunch]

I think I misunderstood the title. :03:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRd3HMS388A&feature=related

[Anthony W.]

I never said I had a problem with dwarfs - I know one that is incredible with audio systems

I was too quick to judge the situation

[GoldenRivet]

you guys are missing one important point here.

Most companies are smart enough to publish physical requirements for a job

such as:

"You must be capable of lifting 50 lbs over your head.'

"You must be of a sufficient height so as to be capable of operating machinery controls to their full deflection and range of motion."

"You must be no taller than 5'3" or not weigh more than 120 lbs to meet the needs of this position"

"This position prohibits facial hair, hair longer than shoulder length and loose fitting clothing for safety reasons."

etc

it is for this reason you dont see "dwarf" airline pilots out there in those terminals - simply because the airline has stated "for safety reasons, an applicant must be of a sufficient height to operate flight controls to their full range of motion and reach any cockpit switch, button or other interface with minimal effort and without assistance from any device or person."

they have made the people interested in the job aware of this requirement. they do not publish a minimum height in feet and inches... they just make this statement and people who think they might be too short dont apply. period.

the deal here is that most restaurants and retail positions only have the lifting capability.

A quick check of starbucks web site shows no such listing of physical requirements for in store workers.

thus, anyone short tall fat or skinny should be eligible for employment.

the young lady's rights were violated.

she has the right to work, there is no stipulation requiring her to be a certain height, thus if she was fired for asking for a stool to stand on to accommodate her unusual height - she was done wrong.

[STEED]

End of Starbucks please...

I don't know what they serve in the rest of the world but here in the UK its sludge from a septic tank.

[Herr-Berbunch]

End of Starbucks please...

I don't know what they serve in the rest of the world but here in the UK its sludge from a septic tank.

Along with every other 'major' coffee-house brand. Really nice coffees are few and far between. :nope:

[GoldenRivet]

get yourself into a situation where you are far away enough from home, in a place you would rather not be, in lousy weather and challenging conditions where a half way decent cup of coffee is not found on every street corner... suddenly your taste in coffee becomes a lot less restrictive.

There have been times in my life where i was quite thankful that it was at least black, wet, and steaming hot.

I agree, the only thing i get at starbucks on one of the 2 or 3 times a year i go there is some caramel dessert thing with whipped cream.

im not much of a coffee drinker, but my keurig K-cup dispenser does the job well when im in the mood for it - generally 2 -3 times per week

[Anthony W.]

Along with every other 'major' coffee-house brand. Really nice coffees are few and far between. :nope:

I'm not much for coffee - but their tea and smoothies are freaking great in the morning to shock your head into the usual mundane routine

[Skybird]

you guys are missing one important point here.

Most companies are smart enough to publish physical requirements for a job

such as:

"You must be capable of lifting 50 lbs over your head.'

"You must be of a sufficient height so as to be capable of operating machinery controls to their full deflection and range of motion."

"You must be no taller than 5'3" or not weigh more than 120 lbs to meet the needs of this position"

"This position prohibits facial hair, hair longer than shoulder length and loose fitting clothing for safety reasons."

etc

it is for this reason you dont see "dwarf" airline pilots out there in those terminals - simply because the airline has stated "for safety reasons, an applicant must be of a sufficient height to operate flight controls to their full range of motion and reach any cockpit switch, button or other interface with minimal effort and without assistance from any device or person."

they have made the people interested in the job aware of this requirement. they do not publish a minimum height in feet and inches... they just make this statement and people who think they might be too short dont apply. period.

the deal here is that most restaurants and retail positions only have the lifting capability.

A quick check of starbucks web site shows no such listing of physical requirements for in store workers.

thus, anyone short tall fat or skinny should be eligible for employment.

the young lady's rights were violated.

she has the right to work, there is no stipulation requiring her to be a certain height, thus if she was fired for asking for a stool to stand on to accommodate her unusual height - she was done wrong.
She received three days of training, and I assume that was not just reading books and writing homeworks. Why hasn't she asked during the training time - which of course also is a mutual testing time: the company checks if the candidate is up to the job, and the candidate checks if the job is what he wants.

However, company speaks of security concerns and risks to her collegeues and herself. Having experienced two accidents with injured collegaues in two different working place in my past, I do not wipe this statement just off the table. Both times, it was the easymindedness of the victims of said accidents that led to the event. They were lucky that they hurt just themselves, not any of their colleagues. we don't know the conditions in place of where that short lady tried to working. Climbing on chairs with hot liquids or sensitive electronic equipment nearby, maybe is no good idea. And wasn'T this about a job of barista, which means she had to operate an espresso machine? Hot water, hot steam, I say. No good idea to stumble and fall with your hand by reflex grabbing for hold on the machine.

Training likely means she handled the machine before. Why hasn'T she reflected on her height problem before, then?

Beside that, we do not know all aspects of the story, and cases like this often include more than what is printed in the media or the court file. Who knows how she performed and behaved on that day. No company hires somebody just to fire him on his first day. I am almost certain that there was more.

[GoldenRivet]

She received three days of training, and I assume that was not just reading books and writing homeworks. Why hasn't she asked during the training time - which of course also is a mutual testing time: the company checks if the candidate is up to the job, and the candidate checks if the job is what he wants.

dont you think that during training the trainer would have noticed that the "dwarf" wasnt six feet tall?

Dont you think it would have been obvious that she was unable to perform certain tasks efficiently during her training?

like it or not, in the United States, Dwarfism is a disability.

it is against the law to fire personnel because of a disability, and as an employer, if you choose to hire someone with a disability you must provide reasonable accommodations to that individual.

she has a case regardless of anyone thinking it is unreasonable for her to ask for a stool :doh:

sorry for the way you feel Skybird, but its a fact.

if they felt that hiring her was going to be an issue, they shouldnt have hired her. not hiring her at all would have been preferential to hiring her, training her and then telling her to bugger off because she is too short.

she was hired with starbucks being fully aware of her limitations.

see the Americans with disabilities act title ONE

the very first title of the whole act

Title I requires employers with 15 or more employees to provide qualified individuals with disabilities an equal opportunity to benefit from the full range of employment-related opportunities available to others. For example, it prohibits discrimination in recruitment, hiring, promotions, training, pay, social activities, and other privileges of employment. It restricts questions that can be asked about an applicant's disability before a job offer is made, and it requires that employers make reasonable accommodation to the known physical or mental limitations of otherwise qualified individuals with disabilities, unless it results in undue hardship.



Training likely means she handled the machine before. Why hasn'T she reflected on her height problem before, then?

false

training means she was being initially familiarized with the operation of equipment, company policy and procedure etc.

[Anthony W.]

She received three days of training, and I assume that was not just reading books and writing homeworks. Why hasn't she asked during the training time - which of course also is a mutual testing time: the company checks if the candidate is up to the job, and the candidate checks if the job is what he wants.

However, company speaks of security concerns and risks to her collegeues and herself. Having experienced two accidents with injured collegaues in two different working place in my past, I do not wipe this statement just off the table. Both times, it was the easymindedness of the victims of said accidents that led to the event. They were lucky that they hurt just themselves, not any of their colleagues. we don't know the conditions in place of where that short lady tried to working. Climbing on chairs with hot liquids or sensitive electronic equipment nearby, maybe is no good idea. And wasn'T this about a job of barista, which means she had to operate an espresso machine? Hot water, hot steam, I say. No good idea to stumble and fall with your hand by reflex grabbing for hold on the machine.

Training likely means she handled the machine before. Why hasn'T she reflected on her height problem before, then?

Beside that, we do not know all aspects of the story, and cases like this often include more than what is printed in the media or the court file. Who knows how she performed and behaved on that day. No company hires somebody just to fire him on his first day. I am almost certain that there was more.

I find it hard enough to make an espresso as it is without breaking something - and I'm almost 6ft tall

[vienna]

Some hire for the wrong reasons, ie they only hire these people because it makes them look good to the public and the media, other places hire them because they either are part of a community program which hires challenged people or they have a contract with the local disability recruitment company that outsources them.


Some companies and/or agencies in some areas also hire because they get a tax break or other financial incentive for hiring persons of difficult to place categories. Among the many projects I have worked on im my career, I worked 4+ years for the County's Office of Affirmative Action (AA) Compliance. The office is responsible for addressing AA issues regarding internal staff and isuues regarding the County's responsibility to accomodate the public at County facilities and/or firms and entities contracted by the County. The County itself receives additional State and Federal funds for its AA program. Likewise, many non-govermental entities do AA hirings to receive tax preferences, reductions, government contracts, etc.

[magic452]

Magic, i wasn't attacking you, i was merely pointing out that the article i linked mentions disabled.
And there are a few mentions in posts which use the word disabled.
Which she isn't.
That is all.
I did read your post and agree with it as well.
It's a different point of view which isn't all that dissimilar from mine.

I was thinking the same thing. :salute:

It was late at night, actually the sun was coming up, and I read more into it than you really posted. :damn:


Magic

[GoldenRivet]

i was merely pointing out that the article i linked mentions disabled.
And there are a few mentions in posts which use the word disabled.
Which she isn't.
That is all.
I did read your post and agree with it as well.
It's a different point of view which isn't all that dissimilar from mine.

wrong

the Americans with Disabilities act expressly lists dwarfism as a disability.

:salute:

[Feuer Frei!]

wrong

the Americans with Disabilities act expressly lists dwarfism as a disability.

:salute:
Thanks for clearing that up :salute:
Interesting definition by the act, no?

[Skybird]

dont you think that during training the trainer would have noticed that the "dwarf" wasnt six feet tall?
Maybe she handled the tasks and did not complain. So he must have thoiught it is no problem.

Dont you think it would have been obvious that she was unable to perform certain tasks efficiently during her training?
Maybe she did not complain and handled the tasks.

like it or not, in the United States, Dwarfism is a disability.
I know somebody who would be extremely pissed by being told that. But okay, your business, not ours.


it is against the law to fire personnel because of a disability, and as an employer, if you choose to hire someone with a disability you must provide reasonable accommodations to that individual.
Security concerns that before were not noticable due to the subject not revealing any critical behavior, is a valid reason to replace somebody.


she has a case regardless of anyone thinking it is unreasonable for her to ask for a stool :doh:

Not if it is all about valid security concerns.


if they felt that hiring her was going to be an issue, they shouldnt have hired her. not hiring her at all would have been preferential to hiring her, training her and then telling her to bugger off because she is too short.
And you do not see any need to ask why they did it nevertheless, eh?


she was hired with starbucks being fully aware of her limitations.
So why did they do it? Where they sytupoiud? Blind? Were they bored and asked for media troubles? Or isn'T it the most likely scneario that during training she did not reveal thnat she had problems to handle a machine to bigh above her? She wanted that job, bit her lips and went through those 3 days, and after that thought she was safe, asking for a stool and then the manager realised that a dwarf who needs a stool to handle a hot pressure machine is a risk. How muzch would she sue Starbuck if the gets injured from hot liquid when handling that macine and somethings goes wrong?


see the Americans with disabilities act title ONE

the very first title of the whole act

a politically most c ortrect and stupidly formulated law. For example a disability resulting in low physical strength nevertheless is expected to be treated as if the person in question could perform tasks that require much more strength.

I call such laws reality ignoration laws.

training means she was being initially familiarized with the operation of equipment, company policy and procedure etc.
And obviously she passed that, including handling that machine. when it was so much stress to reach up there, she obviously hid it to get the job. So the trainer saw no reason to assume a security risk letting her operating the thing. Now she wants to do it from a stool. And Starbuck says that is unsafe. As long as nobody has clear information of that this is just a false claim and they wnated to get rid oif her due to the optics of a dwarf on a stool operayting a mahcine may cause amusement or bewilderment of the guests, I recommend to just takle their word for it, and thus assuming that indeed it is danger involved when having no solid stand while needing to imply force on a lever for a machine. We do not even know if it was a m achine with buttons only, or indeed one of these Italian monsters where indeed physical power is used to press the water through the filter. The article says she worked as a barista, that term is specialised for espresso makers.

People here just have a short aticle, which is not even especially precise. But some immediately took it as granted that this is discrimination for sure, and no other explanation is possible.

That assumption is basing on weak information and thus is a bit - premature.

That's my only position in this thread. Different to some in here I just say that we do not know for sure, and while others claim their position as fact, I want to show you that yoiu simply do not have any facts, and that it could be as well the way I describe it.

Too many people today call "discrimination!" too often too early nowadays.

Wioth laws like this, and mandatory quotas for migrant groups and genders, I would be extremely hesitent to get new employes for my business, if I were a business entrepreneur of any kind. We have comparable follies to this American law in place or being considered in Germany and the EU as well. When by law physical differences shall be ignored, differences should be treated as if being non-existent, and reality should be given a twist as if it were somethign different, than I am loosing willingness to support such a law.

[Lord_magerius]

Once again, a thread about basically random crap leans towards peoples ideas and beliefs, which will then turn into a politics thread which will then be turned into a bitching contest. "My E peen is bigger than yours! I can tell because of the pixels".
I'm all for these threads, it's nice to hear peoples point of view, it just seems lately that every other thread on this site is a topic of pointless debate. And yes I do mean pointless. Something that is worth discussing, yep I'm all for it.

Just the fact that every news story in your town is a legitimate reason to post a thread and then start a flame war, no matter how well worded it is, over trivial crap, seems a bit pointless to me. Yes this stuff goes on every day all over the world, it happens, it's called life and yes some people get s**t on, deal with it.

/rant

Edit:
I used to enjoy checking subsim, having a look round and having a laugh. I come on now to all this pointless turd chucking between members and it pisses me off no end. One of my old favourite sites is now one of the most annoying things in my life. I only come on now, to check if I've had any PM's and that's it. Kind of depressing really, I used to come on just for a random laugh and chat, now I avoid General Topics like the plague. I'm sure I'm not the only member who is in the same situation. Opinion's are like a clitoris, every c**t has one. Just leave it at that rather than shouting at eachother, I know you won't feel so manly, as you won't have told the stooooopid fooooorrriner that his cooooontry is in league with Al Quaeda because they have mosques there. But at least it will give people a break from the norm. You never know, once the childishness stops, we might even get new people posting here. Heaven forbid...

[Feuer Frei!]

Once again, a thread about basically random crap leans towards peoples ideas and beliefs, which will then turn into a politics thread which will then be turned into a bitching contest. "My E peen is bigger than yours! I can tell because of the pixels".
I'm all for these threads, it's nice to hear peoples point of view, it just seems lately that every other thread on this site is a topic of pointless debate. And yes I do mean pointless. Something that is worth discussing, yep I'm all for it.

Just the fact that every news story in your town is a legitimate reason to post a thread and then start a flame war, no matter how well worded it is, over trivial crap, seems a bit pointless to me. Yes this stuff goes on every day all over the world, it happens, it's called life and yes some people get s**t on, deal with it.

/rant

Edit:
I used to enjoy checking subsim, having a look round and having a laugh. I come on now to all this pointless turd chucking between members and it pisses me off no end. One of my old favourite sites is now one of the most annoying things in my life. I only come on now, to check if I've had any PM's and that's it. Kind of depressing really, I used to come on just for a random laugh and chat, now I avoid General Topics like the plague. I'm sure I'm not the only member who is in the same situation. Opinion's are like a clitoris, every c**t has one. Just leave it at that rather than shouting at eachother, I know you won't feel so manly, as you won't have told the stooooopid fooooorrriner that his cooooontry is in league with Al Quaeda because they have mosques there. But at least it will give people a break from the norm. You never know, once the childishness stops, we might even get new people posting here. Heaven forbid...

Maybe it might be more productive and civilized if you actually informed the posters, like me, what your interests are, perhaps we humble posters could actually attempt to appease or sate your hunger for 'real' news.
As for the clitoris analogy, i'll counter with:
Opinions are like a$#holes, everyone's got one.
As for the flame wars and childishness and the general state of what you belive the General Forum section to be, the GT area is a free-for-all, within in reason, to debate, to discuss, to share ideas, to inform, to invite discussions and viewpoints about subject matter from members from all over the world.
I for one, find that free-flowing information of ideas and view points very interesting, and that is one reason i both share and post what i belive are real world issues, such as discrimination, justice, politics, science, nature and many many more.
I know that some threads have been a little heated and have perhaps been a little heavy for the reading, however that is because people are passionate about their beliefs.
I would rather people/members be passionate about their beliefs rather than a collective group of members where a topic is posted and everyone agrees wholy and souly on everything that is posted.
What a boring world that would be.
The invitation of discussion from members from all around the world is in my view interesting and welcome, because it allows people to acknowledge and respect differing views and ideas.
What may be a good idea in one country may not be a good idea in another.
I for one would love to know and be educated about why it isn't a good idea in another country.
It's all about education and freedom of speech.
If freedom of speech were frowned upon here at SUBSIM and in particular the GT section, i for one would find that worrying.
And wrong.
As for the childishness and immaturity, as you claim it to be in threads of late, the Moderators do a fantastic job in keeping in check everything and anything that is considered borderline, or indeed overstepping the line.
I'm sure all agree with that sentiment.
Also, the moment where a topic is posted, you can hover your mouse over the title and get an indication, in most cases of what the topic will be about.
In short, and to the point, if you feel a topic is not worthy of your attention and interest, then ignore it.
That is what i do.
Otherwise my post count would be more than Jim's or Sailor Steve's.
There are many many posts being posted here in this section, and not all will capture my interest.
But, the diversity and freedom that SUBSIM allows it's members to post should be congratulated and encouraged for many a time to come!
My 2 cents worth.

EDIT: Not attacking you Lord magerius, just replying.

[GoldenRivet]

some folks might see disability employment laws as stupid or pointless.

it doesnt change the fact that it is the law black and white.

the girl has a federally recognized disability

her employer is required to accommodate her within reason.

they failed to accommodate her and chose instead to terminate her employment. - I would hate to be in starbucks position right now.

now... i could understand firing her if she asked for a $2500 motorized cart to wheel around in and serve customers.

I could understand firing her if she asked for a $40/hour personal assistant for her whole shift

but she didnt make any unusual or outrageous requests...

all she asked for was one of these

http://www.conveyorsolutionsonline.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000002/StepStool.jpg

people use step stools in the home and work environment all the time.

and it seems a fair number of our esteemed gentlemen at subsim are prepared to join Starbucks in taking a dump on this girl.

does anyone see how stupid this is?

a young lady wishes to contribute constructively to society by getting a job - and because the 5'5" to 6'2" world wasnt designed for her... she's just SOL because of a stool.

a stool people.

and every day we ask "what is wrong with the world today"

read this thread, and there is your answer.

I suppose some of you would refuse to hold the door for a paraplegic lady in a wheel chair... because after all "this world belongs us non handicapped people. she knew the risks of leaving her specialized house. she was stupid to even go outside in the first place, to hell with her."



shameful

[Feuer Frei!]

I'm on your side GR.

[GoldenRivet]

I'm on your side GR.

dont get me wrong... i wasnt calling anyone out by name.


its just that the general feel of this thread is that she is a moron that should have known better and got what she had coming.

I'm sure she probably went home and cried her eyes out for being fired over something so petty, and something so permanent in her life.

There is no doubt in my mind that she probably did experience a lot of emotions and got stuck with a lot of self doubt when they dropped the hammer on her because of her disability

[Feuer Frei!]

dont get me wrong... i wasnt calling anyone out by name.
yea i know who you are referring to.
It just boggles my mind as to why they would refuse to help her.
And i'm wondering what the Starbuck's head office is thinking right now.
At the end of the day, and correct me if i'm wrong but even with a franchise, not independently owned, that the store manager has the right of call for hiring and firing?
What i am trying to say is, does that then fall back on the store manager's inability to assist a disabled employee?
Do we question Starbuck's as a whole to be (allegedly) discrimitory towards disabled employees?
Or do we conclude, that when this is settled in court that the manager is to blame.
I'm probably analysing this way too much but putting another slant on it.
I'm certain that Starbuck's would have a employee's handbook and a code of ethics and a hr department where the manager of the store should be familiar with, so prior to making such a decision, that he should or could have consulted with their (i'm assuming) extensive employee assistance and resources available.
And unfortunately the name attached to that store is Starbuck's. Ie store manager makes a discrimitory (alleged) decision and it goes pear-shaped very very quickly.

[magic452]

I'm quit sure OSHA might have a different view of one of those step stools when used around hot machinery and hot liquids. And if she fell and someone was hurt the lawyers most certainly would. When you start employing people you soon learn to consider these things. If you don't you'll pay a very high price.

It is true that people use step stools all the time and they also fall off them all the time and hopefully not with scalding hot liquids in their hands. He just might have saved her from a serious injury. The step stool just might not be such a good idea after all.

Could the store manager or owner and that is who we're talking about here not Starbucks the corporation, have lowered the machine and any thing else she needed lowered safely and within building codes. I would guess yes, may have cost a couple of thousand+ but there would have been other benefits to consider. Namely getting a good employee who no doubt would have worked there for a long time. Let's face for someone three+ feet tall jobs are not that easy to come by and getting a good employee at that pay scale is also hard to come by and getting one that will last is even harder. Some good PR would no doubt have been a positive result as well. It was really a win situation for him.
Did he do the above, no he fired her and opened up a big can of worms.

Once he hired her he was committed to a set of responsibilities by law and in my option good judgment and decency. If he wasn't up to this he should not have hired her. He may have hired her with all the good intentions in the world but when things didn't work out as expected he took the easy way out or what he though was the easy way out.

Hope she gets the proper satisfaction that he deserves.

Magic

[GoldenRivet]

I'm quit sure OSHA might have a different view of one of those step stools when used around hot machinery and hot liquids.

OSHA would have a problem with one of their own OSHA approved step stools?

probably not - but it wouldn't surprise me

but either way you slice it, either side will have to prove their case in court one way or another.

My assumption is that this is pretty cut and dry. the law is simple in its statement that the person must be at least considered for employment, and if hired every consideration must be made to provide reasonable accommodations for the individual.

pretty simple.

I dont know if this will be a bench trial or a jury trial - i dont know enough about these kinds of proceedings to say, but if it is a jury trial... these things go to the plaintiff a large percentage of the time.

sure there are a number of things to consider, and there are some contradictory issues in this case, but i think that judgement will likely be made in favor of the plaintiff in this case.

then again, until a gavel is pounded and the case is concluded - this is all opinion.