Starbucks accused of discriminating against employee with four psychiatric disorders

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission accuses Starbucks of discriminating against an ex-employee because she has psychiatric disabilities. The EEOC says in a lawsuit that Starbucks knew that the woman, Christine Drake, suffered from four psychiatric disorders, including major depressive disorder, when it hired her in September 2001 to work as a barista at a Starbucks in Seattle. Managers there initially gave her extra time to learn new drinks and supported her, says the EEOC, but a new manager at the store decreased Drake's hours, berated her in front of customers, ignored her requests for help and eventually fired her in May 2004. (Seattle Post-Intelligencer)

Comments

[Reinn]

This is morally repugnant. She worked there for over two years in an apparently unacceptable way before they decided enough is enough? There's got to be more to that story. I have to wonder if it was personal or something. You don't get fired after that long unless something drastic changes in your demeanor at work. And I don't care what the situation is, you NEVER berate your employees at anytime or any place.

[Jimmy Chang in NYC]

So Starbucks does the right thing and 1. Hires her in the first place. 2. Gives her extra time to learn (hint hint...she isn’t getting it) and after a few years her performance was such that she no longer can perform her duties and thus her hours were reduce and then fired.
Remember, this is a performance driven job. You perform, you get hours. You don’t take your meds, you don’t perform and you get canned.

The moral here is that if you get someone with that many issues, you don't hire her in the first place.

3 years of employment? Consider her lucky. She was a psycho case before her job. Most baristas end up as psycho cases dealing with the idiots who come into their stores. Wheres the EEOC then? Huh? (or is it duh?)

[Lauren]

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/ada.html

I'll decode it for you but...employers have rights too. They have the right to conduct business, and if someone's mental disease/disorder/etc prohibits them from bringing the third place? Then they have the right to take care of that. She needs to prove that Starbucks never made a "reasonable effort" to allow her to work there. It states in the law that business people are allowed to have what they need to be profitable and that if a disabled worked is prohibiting them from doing so -- they may fire her because of her performance, not her disability.

Now, this whole article is very vague "one of four mental diseases" and "berated her in front of customers" may be completely out of context. But...she's gonna have an uphill battle on this one.

[Reinn]

If she can't get it, it's obvious within the first couple of months. You know if you can't cut it before you're eligble for benefits.

Performance issues are notoriously difficult to get fired over. Basically you have to cost the company a lot of money in remade drinks and lost customers before they can directly fire you over performance.

Really, there are only two ways you can get fired, being late and constantly calling in. Even then, it takes several months for them to get rid of you. In the year I've worked *vicariously* for Starbucks, I've only seen three people get fired. The one who was fired for performance issues wasn't even officially fired on those terms, but rather a loophole that let them say she lied on her application.

[Billifer the Customer]

Jimmy:
1. You don't know she wasn't taking her meds (or even that she takes meds).

2. You cannot refuse to hire someone just because they have mental or emotional issues -- that's black-letter federal law. Doing so will have your ass in a sling faster than a visit to a BDSM dungeon.

3. Because someone takes extra time to learn doesn't mean he/she doesn't get it; a blind person might need extra time on an SAT despite having a genius IQ, because of the mathematical sections, for instance.

4. You've personally known her a while, I see, so you KNOW that "she was a psycho case before her job"?

The moral here is that you're judging someone you know nothing about without any regard to the prevailing federal law that applies in the case.

Laura:
I'm sure that the person who was fired will have no problem showing that Starbucks was still making a profit even while she was working there. That particular section of the ADA was written specifically for small companies where an accommodation such as installing an elevator in an older building would bankrupt them.

A more readable version for employers is available at the Job Accommodation Network, as well as Resources for Individuals with Disabilities.

The news article might be vague, but what it doesn't say speaks loudest: The case is handled first by an EEOC investigation, not by the courts. EEOC is the one bringing charges, on Ms. Drake's behalf; she is not suing Starbucks directly.

That EEOC has filed a lawsuit in the courts means that EEOC's own investigation has determined that (a) discrimination did exist, and (b) Starbucks and Ms. Drake were unable to reach an agreement. All this can be found by actively reading EEOC's own website.

In the interest of full disclosure: I also have several major psychiatric conditions, but I was able to work at the same high-tech company (without naming names, it made the net work) for six years before I was forced out on medical leave. In the first four and a half years there, I got nothing but praise. Then, due to a combination of a depressive episode and my manager sticking me with the rap for her mistake, I very quickly entered this "performance problem" spiral that was easy for them to manipulate to their satisfaction until finally I was all but forced to leave.

You can read more of my thoughts at my blog, where I've also written about this story, if you're interested. Or not.

[Becca]

When someone like this applies for a job, the employer is pretty much screwed. They're damned if they do (hire her) and they're damned if they don't. If they hire her, they have to make all sorts of accomodations, and when it turns out she can't do the job porperly, she gets fired, and they get sued. If they don't, they get sued. The employer should be able to hire the people that they see fit to do the job, and frankly, she wasn't (can't make drinks at peak hours? Ooooohh BIG help she is). I hate to say it, but it would be a PITA to work with her. The treatment she got at the beginning was as if she was mentally deficient. She wasn't. She had psychiatric disorders, but she wasn't stupid. She should be able to learn just as quickly as anyone else. Bipolar? oh that's a great person to have working with the public. I had a coach who was bipolar and my god it was hell. I think the lawsuit is silly. She got her chance (longer than it should have been), the new manager saw that continuing to employ her was not int their best interest, and had the balls to terminate her.

[deusx]

I know! We can just grind up these people and use their protiens to make White Mocha Syrup. That way they still get to contribute to profitability but can't sue. STARBUCKS IS PEOPLE!

[Summer]

My manager is bi-poller...it is hell! Which they would firer her.

[deusx]

Man I hate bi-pollers. They call, I answer their question, then suddenly they ask me another one. Bastards

bi-polar

[Reinn]

A lot of this is unfounded inference. We don't know if she was bipolar, nor would it matter much. We don't know if she couldn't make drinks during peak hours. All we do know is that she was passable in her job because you don't stay with the job for that long if you're not. And that knowledge means quite a bit.

[deusx]

We don't know that Reinn, unless a manager fabricates something, a mediocre employee can hang on for years. The firing policies at Starbucks require so much paperwork that unless an employee is a serious issue, often the manager would rather put up with the small bit of extra work load or stress rather than deal with it. Not to mention that the old manager might very of well wanted to fire her, but was afraid of the very thing that is happening now occuring then.

But, whether she was disturbed or not, reprimanding employees in front of customers or even peers is just SHITTY management practices.

[Betwixt]

I can't help but notice that many of the people arguing against hiring individuals with bipolar disorder haven't a clue about how it works. Clearly the folks who think the bipolar people are something like animals, with no personalities of their own.

I was a partner of Starbucks, and suffered from bipolar symptoms at the time. I left due to completely different circumstances. Sometimes people just don't make good Starbucks partners, period, doesn't matter if they are bipolar or not. Symptoms can come and go. You can have a pretty good year or 3, and then stress can pull you into a nasty depression.

Becca: Bipolar has nothing to do with "good with people". I was fantastic with people, and, in fact, know MANY bipolars who are excellant with customers. Don't lump the trouble with the bipolar, lump it with the personality.

[Becca]

Reinn, did you choose to read the whole article or just the excerpt at the top? Before you comment, read the whole story.

[connie]

You'd be surprised at how many doctors, lawyers, nurses, and business people are bipolar.

I am bipolar and I do not appreciate some of the comments here. You wouldn't know I have it unless I told you. It is a MEDICAL problem just like diabetes or heart disease.

Most of the time the main problem for people like me is the lack of education in the general public regarding this illness, and the stigma that results.

At my gym I know at least three bipolar folks and those are just the ones that are out to me. Most of you out there know bipolar people-they just haven't told you they have it. There are a ton of us out there.

So, if you get a chronic illness and need some time off, would YOU like to be fired? Same thing.

[coffeeguy]

Man that sounds like a fusterated manager.

Still I don't appreicate a lot of what the article claims the manager did to this employee.

Deffinatly not very representitive of the company.

This really reaks of mistreatment.

[M.J. Feelgud]

She was fired by the new manager, not "Starbucks". Maybe she should sue the new manager instead.

That's wrong with this country. Sue, sue, sue. It's going to make companies think twice before hiring anyone with any type of disability, because there's a big chance they could be sued if they fired them, for ANY reason.

Youse guys should look at what's happening in Europe. It's extremely hard to fire people in some jobs. That's why companies over there don't like to hire people. And that is why they have a smaller and smaller pool of workers paying benefits to a larger and larger pool of non-workers.

Would you now hire any person with a disability, knowing that if you fired them for any reason, they could sue you for discrimination???

[Summer]

Connie,
Sorry you have health issues but a company is in business to make money for its share holders not to provide you with employment. If your health issues keep you from working for an extened period of time or short periods of time but often ... you are of no benifit to the company. It is harsh but that is the real world.
However, it is still your right to sue (working with the EEOC). My manager is a black, bi-polar, woman and a homosexual .. and beyond bad and ineffective as a manager .. she on the other hand will never be fired. Probaly promoted but not fired.

[I can't tell for fear of reprisals]

I work with a manager that is bi-polar. She drinks tons of coffee too. Her turnover rate at her store is enormous. It's hell, and all because we have to deal with her condition.

Tough price to pay just so we can be "equal" when clearly we are not.

There is a reason it's called a disability.

[deusx]

That sounds like a manager I know in Columbus, and they turned around and let her open a new store too. Some of the problems with management is that there are far too many decisions being made to appease out of touch higher up management who decided after meeting a cute pair of boobs at a regional meeting, that they must be attached to a competent manager.

[connie]

Well, Summer, gee thanks. You do know that most bipolars are NOT considered disabled for purposes of going on disability? I guess we should all go live on the streets and beg?

Again, many of you feel this way because the media highlights idiots who do stupid things and happen to have the bipolar label. You never hear about the rest of us who live normal lives right beside the rest of you.

I guarantee this lawsuit would not be going forward if this case had no merit. I hope she wins.

[deusx]

I guarantee that every day thousands of lawsuits that have very little legal merit go to court. Many of them win, which is why there are retard proof instructions on nearly everything. EX. It is a legal requirement that companies put a warning lable on a cup of hot coffee warning the consumer that the contents are hot.

Ahhhh, Connie I never said you should live on the street. What I said was a company is there to make money for its share holders not provide you or anyone with a job. It was you who said you took time off from work because of your disorder, not me.

[akeeyu]

I Can't Tell... Maybe your boss is just a bitch, and/or a poor manager. A bipolar person can have personality traits and skill sets that (gasp!) have nothing to do with their disease, just like everyone else.

I always hate it when people start a story with "I know someone who is bipolar and..." because I can pretty much guarantee you that you know more than one bipolar person, and we're not all the same. Most people, you just can't tell.

Also, I love the whole 'If you're bipolar, you're screwed no matter what' argument that seems to keep cropping up in comments. She was a productive member of society for two years. She should be commended for that, not scorned. Then again, if she is unable to hold another job and has to go on disability, she will also be roasted for NOT being a productive member of society, etc, etc.

So, what's the answer?

Realistically, what's the point of getting treatment for a mental illness if the stigma never goes away?

[Summer]

Akeeyu,
Your comments are correct but my manager who is bi-polar lets eveyone know that she is and she is covered by ADA.

If any of you so called "people", and I use that term loosely, had ever had to deal up close and personal with some with these disorders, like a sister or father, you would shut your damn mouths about how you hate people with mental disorders. I was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder, and Obessive-Complusive disorder, so I guess we should just be rounded up and sent to the "hospitals" they had during the 19th century which were basically prisons to throw all the "crazies" in. People like you make me my sick. If it was someone who was in a wheelchair or deaf or something, it wouldn't be a problem now, would it? Because in your mind, these people are people with "real" disabilties, but people with mental disorders should not be be held to that type of standard. Their illnesses don't count. So just to let you know, I've I've been working customer service for 15 years and have only had good apprisals from my jobs. If any of you could tell me what Bipolar Disorder actually is, you could knock me over with a feather. Burn in hell, schmucks. (Oh crap, that must be the bipolar in me! Run, run!)

I think most people know what Bipolar means. Even if they never had experience with it, the word is kind of self-explanatory don't you think? Bipolar is the new politically correct way of saying "Manic-depressive", which is also pretty self explanatory.

That being said, I think most people have been stating that mental issues or not, it's more likely the person would of been a crappy employee. I don't know what this opinion is really based on, but it's more than likely no one in their right mind *pardon the pun* would fire someone for being mentally ill. Just for the very reasons that have cropped up.

It would be more likely that she was fired for incompetence or insubordination. That MIGHT have been caused by her illness or it might just be who she is. Even if it was caused by her illness, the "i can't help it" reasoning only goes so far, the business needs to be able to run smoothly and if the illness is interrupting that process, even after accomodations have been made, then she should of been let go sooner.

Uh...I have several disorders as well including major depressive disorder, and anxiety...And let me just say that yea I had trouble with the job when my depression got bad, but I finally got a handle on my life and yea I'm still affected by this stuff but I'm able to hold down a job...Just because it's mental doesn't mean it's fake...So shove off!

[nickname]

Reinn: i have fired many people who weren't living up to performance standards. i've even written up all partners who were present on a 3 star snapshot, since "adequate" isn't good enough for me.

we have an obligation to protect this company of ours, and if for some reason it is getting degredated, we need to remove the cancer.

that being said, i've known some real asshat managers, who i wouldn't trust with my cat, let alone wanting them to run a store in MY company.

this story isn't complete, but those of you with mental illnesses need to stop taking everything so personally.

there's alot of ignorance in this world, and instead of getting offended, you should try to educate those people who don't know.

and since when did it become a RIGHT not to be offended by others? when did it become a RIGHT to a job if you're not performing up to expectations?

i think the biggest problem i have with starbucks is that we try too hard to make sure everyone succeeds (although i sort of think it's the right thing to do) that often we (although, not me) don't take action when they're just not the right fit.

com'mon. you know im right. how many of the people you know, would you want to work in your store? (that is if you care about this company)

good people don't always make good baristas.

we need to take action faster, and quit passing the buck on the problems we create (like possibly hiring someone, and not promoting them to customer when it's clear that they aren't the right fit)...

[connie]

I never said whether I worked or not. You are confusing me with someone else.

When I worked I did not have absences. Period. Unless you really want to count my gall bladder operation.

[Summer]

promoting to customer LOL!!!!!!!!

[Boston Starbucks Rebel]

I thought you had to be schizo to work at Starbucks to begin with.
I thought you had to be schizo to work at Starbucks to begin with.
I thought you had to be schizo to work at Starbucks to begin with.
I thought you had to be schizo to work at Starbucks to begin with.
I thought you had to be schizo to work at Starbucks to begin with.
Opppppppps my OSD again!

[wsdave]

Did you hear that Winnie the Pooh vistited both the Artic and the Antartic?

After that they called him the Bi-polar Bear.

:)

[wsdave]

Joking aside,

As has been pointed out, there are any number of "disabilities" and "disorders" that aflict many people without affecting their job performance at all. Other people ARE affected (to some degree or another).

I think that each of us owes it to ourselves and our society to take responablity for our abilities. I wouldn't apply for a job as a prize fighter, a brain doctor, or a French teacher because, while I may have some skill, I don't have enough skill to be a professional.

An old quote goes something like "A man has got to know his limitations". We should all live up to this ideal, and either get trained (or educated) better, or find a job suited to our situation. We need to stop blaming the employer, and start looking to ourselves.

This goes for ALL employees, whether "disabled" or not.

[endless]

Ok, I don't care what mental state your in or what condition you have, if you can't do the job then its time to go. PERIOD. END OF THE STORY.

Would she have sued had it been a business with a smaller name? Like the local deli near your house? Probably not, no $$$$$$$$ signs in that business.

[coffeeguy]

Honestly you guys don't personally know here so shut up about her being unable to do the job.

For all we know she WAS prefectly capable and the new manager was just hard on her.

don't judge if you don't know the person.

Some are saying that these disorders don't affect the job? We had a depressive and bipolar shift and during some of our busiest moments she would run off crying to the backroom over something stupid like spilled mocha and leave her shift unattended and baristas running around like crazy. And this would happen three or four times a week. That seriously messes up the store.

[Billifer the Customer]

You know... After I had to give up my high-tech job due to my bipolar, anxiety, and sleep disorders, I had actually considered working part-time at Starbucks as an option for vocational rehabilitation.

With the responses I'm seeing from the people here (whom, I'm assuming from this and previous posts, are primarily baristas), screw that. You've all firmly persuaded me that there's no way in hell I'd do such a thing, current news story or not.

[corianderstem]

Yeah, gotta love the handful of Starbucks partners on the net being rude and making people think all 117,000 of us are like that. Good job!

[nickname]

this is not a job for the weak.

(that has nothing to do with any of the above statements, about mental health or not).

this is not a job that most people can do, and do well.

if you can't handle stress, you won't be a good barista.

if you can't handle multitasking, you won't be a good barista.

if you can't handle people yelling at you, and then giving them what they want - even if you know they're lying, then you won't be a good barista.

this has NOTHING to do with being bi-polar, depressed or ANYTHING else.

it has to do with a specific type of personality that starbucks targets to have in their stores.

stop taking this case so personally.

no one knows anything about the case itself, whether this woman could or couldn't do the job...

that isn't the point.

we're not all talking specific here, since if we're smart - we understand that we DON'T know specifics of the case.

i'm talking in generalities...
whether mental able or 'not'...

relax.

[Boston Starbucks Rebel]

Thank you Nickname. I actually recommended that Starbucks do a full psychological test at least the MMPI-2 in order to determine if a person had the ability of performing their a job as a barista efficiently. Obviously some people have some extreme stress they have to cope with at high-volume locations. Some people simply crack under the stress.
If a shift has to walk away crying because of a problem maybe they shouldn't have been a shift in the first place. Also, the baristas should be trained well enough so that they can continue store functions without having somebody telling them exactly what to do.
Finally, many people have said that I am crazy for my passion for what I do but I love what I do and believe in actually creating an uplifting and enriching experience everyday for my customers.

[Lauren]

Oh man this post, when re-read is one of the BEST ever. I mean...the whole bi-polar thing came from Deusx making a joke about the spelling of the word (and it was funny)-- because when you're on the internet and the ONLY thing you have to represent your person and your character and you mispell something -- I take it seriously. Not saying I don't make mistakes -- I make plenty. Still, it was all in fun.

Also, for the second time Deusx, +1 for Soilent Green reference (oh man Heston in an ascot? that's hot stuff).

And... Billifer -- it's Lauren, not Laura, and that's cool. And I have sympathy for those with any sort of disability (from obesity to blindness) but I do realize what the law was written for. I also stated that there was a lot not covered in the article. 4 mental diseases? Lots of no comments? We don't know what's going on here. All I'm saying is the employee has the right to do the job if s/he CAN and the employer has the right to have them stop doing that job if they're inhibiting profit. And since Starbucks has over 15 workers (as required) I think they fit into that category.

I'm sorry that you no longer want to work for this great company (my personal store warms my heart every single day and makes me glad to not only be alive but to be working there with such amazing company). I know every store is different and I've worked in far worse -- but to take the company as what the people here say it is? You just have to trust. How many people who posted still work for Starbucks? How many were fired? How many...etc. I think you get my point.

[Lauren]

Oh man. Haha. I misspelled misspell. Haha, that's awesome.

[Betwixt]

So Lauren, is "Treat everyone with dignity and respect" still a Starbucks motto, or did they change it to, "Treat everyone who doesn't have any disabilities or mental illnesses with dignity and respect"?

I'm pretty sure Starbucks profits aren't being hindered by people with mental illness, bipolar and more. The idea of that is just laughable.

Above I saw that someone said it was the new manager that fired her. Doesn't matter. Management is also the company. As management, you are covered by the Sbux legal department.

[Billifer the Customer]

Lauren -- Thanks, I get your point. (Sorry about the Laura/Lauren mix up.) Was it you who posted the response on my blog?

What I'm saying about inhibiting profit is that "profit" is considered as the company-wide profit, not the individual store profit.

As for Starbucks partners in general -- well, at least 2/3rds of my friends are current partners. They're all great people. They love me, respect me, understand my situation. Hell, my former boyfriend is a current partner (and is probably reading this post in fact; hi Brad -- I really do miss you even if I can't say it).

As for the other comments I'm seeing here (and this will be my final comment on this thread because you can only hammer a nail so many times):

* Summer: What if you had said, "My manager is a n*gger and it's hell. I wish they would fire her"? What's the difference?

Also, no one has touched on it, but the FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) does allow a person to take up to 3 months off per 12 months (under certain conditions) for the care of a sick family member or their own serious health condition -- with the guarantee that they will not lose their job because of it. Would you like to lose your job because you fall, shatter your pelvis, and have to spend 2-3 months in surgery and recovery? Same thing.

* M.J. Feelgud: A manager, in hiring or firing an employee, is an agent of the company acting on its behalf. The company is therefore liable for the actions of the manager. She (Christine Drake) isn't suing Starbucks or anyone else; the EEOC is. Christine Drake doesn't even have a right to sue under the law until and unless the EEOC says so.

* I Can't Tell for Fear of Reprisals: You have the option of leaving and going someplace else anytime you want. Know what? I don't. You work with it -- I live with it. At the end of your shift, you go home. Mine's with me 24/7. You quit the job, it goes away. It'll be with me all my life. And, as a person replying on my blog pointed out, I seem to be "inept," so that day could come any time now.

* Anonymous at Sep 15, 2006 2:24:21 PM: The question is whether a person can accomplish the basic job functions with "reasonable" accommodations. The keyword is reasonable. Have you seen the job description for a barista? You can bet that it will specify the basic tasks, such as "able to stand for extended periods of time," "able to lift xx pounds," etc. Those are the basic job functions.

She was probably capable of those things; according to the news story, the only accommodations she had were extra time to learn and not being on bar during busy hours -- the courts would find those reasonable, because she could be on register during busy hours, or doing recovery, or whatever; just because she wasn't on bar doesn't mean she was sitting in back slitting her wrists.

When the new manager took away those accommodations (according to the story), she was no longer able to meet performance goals, and so therefore, the basis of a discrimination suit exists prima facie.

* Nickname: You sound like a certain manager I know locally. Hypothetically speaking, would you take it personally if the headline was something like "Starbucks accused of discriminating against female manager with Italian surname that sounds like a vegetable"? Okay, that's silly... What about, "Starbucks fires all blonde store managers"?

What I'm getting at is this: There's a certain solidarity that you feel in a case like this, whether you know the person or not. It's no different than the Million Man March or the candlelight vigil for Matthew Shepherd. I'm not calling the woman a saint or a martyr, because you're right about one thing: I, at least, personally know nothing about her, her work performance, or the situation surrounding the lawsuit. But there's no other way for me to take it than personally.

Corianderstem: You're perfectly right. Most of my friends are current partners. (See my comments to Lauren above.)

[formerly "anon"]

It's disgraceful how some Starbucks employees are acting on this site. A total embarassment! Shame on you all!

Yeah Formerly Anon, it is terribly upsetting, it's making me crazy to think about it.

[STARBUCKS GOSSIP webmaster]

I don't think -- or would hope -- that people believe the comments of a few reflect how an entire corporate workforce thinks.

Would you now hire any person with a disability, knowing that if you fired them for any reason, they could sue you for discrimination??? --MJ Feelgud

If you don't hire them you'll get sued for discrimination too. So, well, moot point. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[M.J. Feelgud]

"Would you now hire any person with a disability, knowing that if you fired them for any reason, they could sue you for discrimination??? --MJ Feelgud

If you don't hire them you'll get sued for discrimination too. So, well, moot point. Damned if you do, damned if you don't."

That's a rhetorical question. Labor laws have now swung to the opposite side of the pendulum. We had them in the beginning to protect workers, now they verge to being ridiculous. Let's put it this way, would you hire this person to baby sit your kids? I'm sorry if this seems a stupid or unjust question, and babysitting isn't the same as making drinks, but it shows that not all things are equal.