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.
|