Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
EL PASO, TX -- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is suing Starbucks for firing a dwarf who asked for a stool to perform her job as a barista at an El Paso shop.
The EEOC said in a statement released after the federal lawsuit was filed Monday in El Paso that Elsa Sallard was terminated after three days of training because Starbucks deemed she would pose a danger to customers and coworkers.
Starbucks gets federal lawsuit for firing a dwarf | abc13.com (http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/state&id=8133077 - broken link)
Great, yet another reason not to even hire people with disabilities. This should have been worked out prior to hiring...now they are major losers on this one.
Dwarf? I thought that was a politically INCORRECT word these days and grounds for a lawsuit in itself. What happened to "little people"? Who cares. I'm rooting for Startrucks in this instance. The height challenged person applied for the wrong job in the hope this would happen. Easy money from a heavy pocket company who will just pay this person off a few cool mill just to shut him/her up and avoid court.
In every job application or hiring paperwork, there is a section asking what accomodations you would need for a disability, if you were hired. If she failed to list "stepstool", and they hired her believing she did not need special accomodations, then this lawsuit will fail. As it should.
But if she told them upfront she would need a stool to reach the counters (or it was obvious that she would be unable to perform the necessary tasks without accomodations) then the suit will fail. Chances are, she's looking for a settlement. She'll probably get one, unfortunately.
Another poster previously stated that these ridiculous and litigous lawsuits will stop only when there is a significant penalty (related to the amount of the judgement sought sounds equitable to me) applied to any suit that is found to be ridiculous.
I've got no problem not hiring people with disabilities if it impacts their ability to reasonably perform the job, which might be something they discovered in training. Maybe they should be applauded for giving her a try to see if it could work out, conversely if they just let her go because of her appearance then maybe a reasonable complaint.
The EEOC believes Starbucks violated the Americans With Disabilities Act by refusing to provide the stool or a small stepladder as reasonable accommodation to Sallard and then firing her.
I don't think there's enough information in that article to really have an opinion.
My first thought is that being a barista isn't a static job, Starbucks servers are moving around constantly....deli/bakery case, register, coffee making equipment, drive-through window...if the woman was so short that she would need a stool or stepladder to reach everything, she'd have to be lugging the stool around constantly and climbing up and down. Which I think would be quite disruptive and probably not very safe especially when they are really busy; there's not a whole lot of space behind those counters. I don't see how that would be a "reasonable accomodation."
The EEOC believes Starbucks violated the Americans With Disabilities Act by refusing to provide the stool or a small stepladder as reasonable accommodation to Sallard and then firing her.
I don't think there's enough information in that article to really have an opinion.
My first thought is that being a barista isn't a static job, Starbucks servers are moving around constantly....deli/bakery case, register, coffee making equipment, drive-through window...if the woman was so short that she would need a stool or stepladder to reach everything, she'd have to be lugging the stool around constantly and climbing up and down. Which I think would be quite disruptive and probably not very safe especially when they are really busy; there's not a whole lot of space behind those counters. I don't see how that would be a "reasonable accomodation."
I agree. Also maybe hitting coworkers with the stool, or them tripping over her or the stool.
You're right, it is a fast paced environment and there isn't much room. Who wants to add to it by having to look down or worry about getting hit with a stool or falling over it.
Add in hot liquids, not a good idea.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
