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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more