Skip to main content

One to Keep An Eye On: Starbucks Sued for Alleged Discrimination of Deaf Employee


In October, a lawsuit was filed against Starbucks on the grounds that the company allegedly discriminated against a deaf employee because of her disability.  The suit, Roberts v. Starbucks Coffee Company, was filed in Federal District Court in Arizona.

To prevail on her disability discrimination claim, Roberts needs to show she was a qualified individual with a disability (as recognized by the Americans with Disabilities Act) that could perform the essential functions of her job with reasonable accommodations, yet the company refused to provide those reasonable accommodations.  The main defense that Starbucks could raise to this type of ADA claim is to establish that allowing the reasonable accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the company's business and therefore not be feasible.

In the lawsuit, Roberts claimed she repeatedly asked for reasonable accommodations on multiple occasions between March 2007 and January 2014, when she was ultimately fired.  Some of the reasonable accommodation requests she made included accommodations to ensure effective communication (such as having sign language interpreters present for staff meetings, training, and other important work events), that would have allowed her to perform the essential functions of her job, and to enjoy the benefits and privileges of employment.  According to her lawsuit, these accommodation requests were repeatedly denied by Starbucks.  

Roberts claimed that after meeting with management and insisting on interpreters, she was later terminated as a measure of retaliation for a charge of discrimination she filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC").  Apparently, the reason Starbucks gave for her termination was for having "visible tattoos", even though she apparently had them for the duration of her employment and other workers had visible tattoss (yet apparently were not terminated, let alone on those grounds).

At this point, Starbucks has yet to file a response to the lawsuit.  This case is still in the very early stages of litigation but worth keeping an eye on.


Special thanks to the Consumerist for a copy of the lawsuit:  https://consumermediallc.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/starbucks.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more