Starbucks gets lawsuit for firing a dwarf in Texas
 

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

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

Good for her. :up:

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

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

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.

Not 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.

That'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.

And 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.

You 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 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!

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

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.

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

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.

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:

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

Either that or unleash the HFS on them.

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.

I think I misunderstood the title. :03:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRd3H...eature=related