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

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.

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



false

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

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

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.

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

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?

Maybe she handled the tasks and did not complain. So he must have thoiught it is no problem.

Maybe she did not complain and handled the tasks.

I know somebody who would be extremely pissed by being told that. But okay, your business, not ours.

Security concerns that before were not noticable due to the subject not revealing any critical behavior, is a valid reason to replace somebody.

Not if it is all about valid security concerns.

And you do not see any need to ask why they did it nevertheless, eh?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.c.../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

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

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.

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

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.