Only the people there can say if she was creating a hazard. I doubt they would have hired her, planning to fire her. We can’t win today. It is possible that she wasn’t a capable person….just the same as many people of regular stature.
I would think a stool behind the counter would be a hazard. Also employees of Starbucks move around frequently. A stool would be of a greater detriment to her well being than being physically challenged by her stature.
I think the fact that Starbucks offered the job in the first place validates that they were practicing equal opportunity employment – if they fired her just because she was short why would they hire her in the first place. They should not be denied their right to let go an employee in the first 90 days if they find them incapable of doing the job. As an employer, with as little information that is given in the article, I side with Starbucks.
Was the manager blind when he hired her? Starbucks screwed up. By hiring her they would have reasonably known she could not reach the coffee machines. Since they hired her they can’t use that as an argument. Not a wise decision. I understand that a stool is not a safe way to work in a busy store but what were they thinking? They almost imply that they can accomdate her by hiring a person that obviously has a limitation. Waiting until after they hired her to find out and then fire her withj out making an effort to help is cruel and poor management.
A smart interviewer may legally ask ” The job requires a person to be able to access machines at X ft high, are their any limitations for you to perform that task?” Perfectly legal and interviewing 101.
This lawsuit will mean only one thing: No rational person or company will consider even thinking of hiring a dwarf. No public company could do it, as that would put shareholders at risk. Yet another blow to another group of people, kindly provided by greedy government lawyers.
Perhaps they could have kept her on as a cashier who could sit on a stool most of the time at that job. Sometimes being a little creative and thinking outside the norm gets around other problems.
There really aren’t too many workers sitting on their butt at Starbucks. It really isn’t very creative to say “nevermind that you can’t perform the job, but here’s your paycheck anyway”.
On a related note, lawyers for Mr. Manolo Bantu have filed a lawsuit against Starbucks for another EEOC-related dismissal.
In 2007, Mr. Bantu was hired as a server following an interview held at an outdoor cafe table at the store in downtown Bailey Corners, MA. Several days later his employment was terminated after his supervisor determined that Mr. Bantu was deceased, and had been amongst the non-living for several months.
According to the Starbucks manager, who declined to be named in this report, they had been looking for someone with the right demeanor. “The good thing here is a bad thing, in that we’re right across form the local elementary school. All day long, teachers and kids are coming through the door and it’s a madhouse at best.”
Mr. Bantu “appeared to be perfect for the job; he was soft-spoken, courteous, well-groomed, and he didn’t require transportation. We seemed to hit it off right away”, he continued.
Lawyers from Dewey Cheatham and Howe, representing the estate of Bantu, stated that as long as the offer of full-time employment was tendered, even in an at-will State, Mr. Bantu was fully entitled to benefits and protective rights under the Commonwealth and US constitution. They did, however, confirm that no claim will be made for lack of consortium in the penalty phase.
I find this really odd, as I’ve been to starbucks that have dwarfs working the bar on a small stand. I’ve seen a dwarf rock out the morning rush. I don’t see why this would be a problem at this one store.
Hmmm….I think I was served by Dopey this morning. Yesterday, Sneezy served me and, you guessed it, decorated my cup with a nasal espresso shot.
In an un-related law suit that I just reviewed, a Starbucks in my town has been sued by two women of questionable reputations that came in late at night, and two dwarves working behind the counter were sing Hi Ho, Hi Ho……… Its a real messy suit.
Only the people there can say if she was creating a hazard. I doubt they would have hired her, planning to fire her. We can’t win today. It is possible that she wasn’t a capable person….just the same as many people of regular stature.
what, Starbucks doesn’t need a SHORT-ORDER COOK????
They liked to be called “a little barista”
I would think a stool behind the counter would be a hazard. Also employees of Starbucks move around frequently. A stool would be of a greater detriment to her well being than being physically challenged by her stature.
They may have been a little short sighted in hiring her in the first place.
I think the fact that Starbucks offered the job in the first place validates that they were practicing equal opportunity employment – if they fired her just because she was short why would they hire her in the first place. They should not be denied their right to let go an employee in the first 90 days if they find them incapable of doing the job. As an employer, with as little information that is given in the article, I side with Starbucks.
I think the Starbuck manager was a bit short sighted when we hired this person and did not realize she would need an accomodation
Was the manager blind when he hired her? Starbucks screwed up. By hiring her they would have reasonably known she could not reach the coffee machines. Since they hired her they can’t use that as an argument. Not a wise decision. I understand that a stool is not a safe way to work in a busy store but what were they thinking? They almost imply that they can accomdate her by hiring a person that obviously has a limitation. Waiting until after they hired her to find out and then fire her withj out making an effort to help is cruel and poor management.
A smart interviewer may legally ask ” The job requires a person to be able to access machines at X ft high, are their any limitations for you to perform that task?” Perfectly legal and interviewing 101.
This lawsuit will mean only one thing: No rational person or company will consider even thinking of hiring a dwarf. No public company could do it, as that would put shareholders at risk. Yet another blow to another group of people, kindly provided by greedy government lawyers.
Perhaps they could have kept her on as a cashier who could sit on a stool most of the time at that job. Sometimes being a little creative and thinking outside the norm gets around other problems.
That’s a nice idea, but what happens when the register comes up short?
There really aren’t too many workers sitting on their butt at Starbucks. It really isn’t very creative to say “nevermind that you can’t perform the job, but here’s your paycheck anyway”.
On a related note, lawyers for Mr. Manolo Bantu have filed a lawsuit against Starbucks for another EEOC-related dismissal.
In 2007, Mr. Bantu was hired as a server following an interview held at an outdoor cafe table at the store in downtown Bailey Corners, MA. Several days later his employment was terminated after his supervisor determined that Mr. Bantu was deceased, and had been amongst the non-living for several months.
According to the Starbucks manager, who declined to be named in this report, they had been looking for someone with the right demeanor. “The good thing here is a bad thing, in that we’re right across form the local elementary school. All day long, teachers and kids are coming through the door and it’s a madhouse at best.”
Mr. Bantu “appeared to be perfect for the job; he was soft-spoken, courteous, well-groomed, and he didn’t require transportation. We seemed to hit it off right away”, he continued.
Lawyers from Dewey Cheatham and Howe, representing the estate of Bantu, stated that as long as the offer of full-time employment was tendered, even in an at-will State, Mr. Bantu was fully entitled to benefits and protective rights under the Commonwealth and US constitution. They did, however, confirm that no claim will be made for lack of consortium in the penalty phase.
Bravo is always hiring dearfs for reality shows.
I agree with “Rusty”.
Hey what about the lolly pop guild?!
At Starbucks, they refer to a dwarf as a “tall.”
Regarding the lawsuit, do you think someone put her up to it?
Starbucks? Appealing to an incredibly diverse group of people? Seriously? Have you ever been there?
I find this really odd, as I’ve been to starbucks that have dwarfs working the bar on a small stand. I’ve seen a dwarf rock out the morning rush. I don’t see why this would be a problem at this one store.
Starbucks, this was really short-sighted of you…
Hmmm….I think I was served by Dopey this morning. Yesterday, Sneezy served me and, you guessed it, decorated my cup with a nasal espresso shot.
In an un-related law suit that I just reviewed, a Starbucks in my town has been sued by two women of questionable reputations that came in late at night, and two dwarves working behind the counter were sing Hi Ho, Hi Ho……… Its a real messy suit.