A San Diego County jury has awarded $250,000 in punitive damages plus $7,500 in compensatory damages to Sean Robb, a 19-year-old former Starbucks employee who accused his assistant manager of repeated sexual harassment. Starbucks fired Robb three weeks after he complained that Michael Sewell was acting appropriately. Witnesses testified they saw Sewell grind his body against Robb and other male employees. Starbucks says it did nothing wrong and plans to appeal. (San Diego Union-Tribune)
Good for Rob.
Posted by: Sarah | October 12, 2006 at 07:37 AM
sadly, this almost mirrors a situation at a store i worked at about a year ago....an ASM got fired for something similar. a close friend of mine was the victim, and it got quite ugly because the ASM was well liked and everyone decided to blame her. she eventually tranferred because of it. fucked up.
Posted by: CuteBarista! | October 12, 2006 at 08:04 AM
ALLWAYS stand up for yourself.
Posted by: someone | October 12, 2006 at 10:43 AM
They're appealing?
I have a feeling they'll lose again.
In this case, Sbux is far more than wrong for what they did.
Corporate is getting stupid as of late.
Posted by: Barista sUz | October 12, 2006 at 03:40 PM
All management have training upon training about how not to let this happen. I have been to many seminars for this purpose. Maybe the ASM missed the meetings? or is just plain stupid! Corporate tries really hard to eliminate this behavior.
Posted by: coco | October 12, 2006 at 04:53 PM
over this past summer, i had 2 sexual harassment cases~ thank god starbucks has nothing to do w/ it :D maybe that's y i love & feel so safe at work :)
Posted by: ~NiTOXina~ | October 12, 2006 at 04:55 PM
That ex-partner's story makes me sad. I'm glad he won.
Posted by: corianderstem | October 12, 2006 at 06:09 PM
i'd be interested in knowing, what starbucks' is trying to appeal...
i think its defending the firing, not the harrassment.
but either way, i think the rob's of the world just won a victory.
Posted by: | October 13, 2006 at 03:29 AM
Sexual harrasement happens ALL THE TIME at Starbuks.
Whether it is agressive or whether anyone takes offense to it, by it's definition, IT HAPPENS. Yes, the company does work to decrease/eliminate it, but not as much as it should.
Maybe this will finally be a wakeup call to those money-hungrys in Seattle.
Posted by: A | October 13, 2006 at 08:28 AM
My former manager was fired over similar issues. Actually though, the barista herself didn't have a problem, but everyone else in the store did, so the conduct line was kept busy for a few days. I was pleased with how Starbucks handled it.
Posted by: | October 13, 2006 at 08:27 PM
Wait...are you saying that other people were being offended on the barista's behalf...but the person who actually received the behaviour had no problem with it?
Posted by: Deusx | October 14, 2006 at 08:28 AM
deusx, Think of it this way: Even if the employee being targeted is ok with it, that kind of behavior is unprofessional and a manager should know that. It's very possible that the rest of the staff & customers might feel uncomfortable with sexually explicit comments and touching taking place in the store.
Posted by: moonbeam | October 14, 2006 at 10:36 PM
The increadible down side of having employees.
Posted by: wsdave | October 15, 2006 at 02:53 PM
Moonbeam,
It is not spelled out that explicitly sexual dialogue, etc. were involved. I saw a situation here where two gay baristas hugged good bye(platonic, they werent dating even) and another partner complained it made them "uncomfortable and feeling harassed".
As for the behaviour being unprofessional, I won't disgree. But they weren't upset at the lack of professinalism, but instead were offended on the employee's behalf. Lots of things are unprofessional at work; talking about personal life, laughing at jokes, complimenting someone on a good hair day.
What if the issue was a simple as a hug? If you were hugged by someone at work and had no problem with it. Would you feel a bit frustrated that someone had the need to feel offended on your behalf?
Posted by: | October 15, 2006 at 05:37 PM
im being harrassed by a coustomer at my store and its got to the point where i have to come off the floor now no matter how busy we r who do i talk to my manager isnt much help in that area
Posted by: baristanaz | October 16, 2006 at 12:00 AM
Call your District manager and ask for a sit down. Always follow the chain of authority. If the DM also is unhelpful, don't make any comments about doing so, but call Partner Asset Protection.
Posted by: | October 16, 2006 at 06:38 AM
baristanaz
If the customer is bothering you ask them to leave. The manger can ban them from the store.
I have done this with a couple of customers, it is not easy but sometimes necessary.
Posted by: Autum | October 16, 2006 at 09:58 AM
That is terrible advice Autum, she already stated that the manager isn't doing anything about the issue. If she were to tell this person to leave and the manager didn't back her up on it, she could lose her job. Also, the manager cannot ban them from the store Autum, the only people with authority to ban someone is corporate.
Posted by: Deusx | October 17, 2006 at 02:26 PM
I don't know about the States, but in Canada managers can ban customers from the store. Hell, shifts can ban customers from the store if it's serious enough.
Posted by: billybob | October 22, 2006 at 10:16 PM
(actually only the police can ban anyone.
'banning' requires actual police serving the offending customer with papers that prohibit entry to the store.
what we do all the time is ask people to leave and not allow them service if they come in.
not actual banning.)
Posted by: | October 23, 2006 at 04:18 AM
Actually at my store (in Canada) shifts have bannned some people, like to the point that if theyre even on the patio we have to call the police
Posted by: Theolaxor | October 23, 2006 at 08:37 AM
Yup, mine too. Maybe it's a Canadian thing. I ban people all the time for shooting up in the washrooms. I don't want my baristas exposed to dirty needles.
Posted by: billybob | October 23, 2006 at 09:20 AM
exactly
Posted by: Theolaxor | October 23, 2006 at 12:03 PM
i live in canada.
and what we call banning, isn't banning.
in a legally binding ban there must be supportive paperwork, that has been delivered by the police.
we say 'you're banned' all the time, but the reality is: they are not.
you have the right to refuse to serve someone, which is technically what you are doing.
not that it makes much difference, just sharing information.
Posted by: | October 23, 2006 at 02:37 PM
So, of course someone on this site is always defending corporate and blaming the victim. It never cease to amaze me how dilusional Deusx could be. If this dude isn't being paid to spread the "good word" about the company and conducting smear tactics on the victims, I have no idea why he's so passionate on his stances. If a barista was being harrassed by a customer or a fellow employee, that barista has the right to stand up for his/herself by taking legal actions through the corporate ethics committee or the police. If corporate turns a blind eye (which they do in numerous occassions), you have a right as a citizen to procede legal actions against the harrasser. It doesn't matter what Deusx or whoever else says, no one should ever live in fear or humiliation in this country. It's our fundamental right, people!
Posted by: formerly "anon" | October 23, 2006 at 04:09 PM
why was DEUSX dragged into this?
oh yeah... its Formerly "Anon"'s sworn duty...
Posted by: Theolaor | October 23, 2006 at 04:30 PM
It might not be a legally binding ban as you say, but when you tell someone that they're not allowed in the premises and they won't leave when you ask them to, then it becomes trespass. Add into the equation that these people quite often threaten to kill you, it's time to call 911.
Posted by: billybob | October 23, 2006 at 10:33 PM
wow its like we work at the same store
Posted by: Theolaxor | October 24, 2006 at 08:43 AM
hehe!
I'm in downtown Tronno, where are you?
Posted by: billybob | October 24, 2006 at 08:56 AM
ahhaah
not toronto
BC
Posted by: Theolaxor | October 25, 2006 at 08:23 AM
Anyone else find it ironic that Formerly Anon says that no one in the country should have to live in fear or humiliation, that it's a fundemental right (which is kinda true, one could say they go against the pursuit of happiness) and yet spends alot of time harassing, insulting and making fun of me?
I've tried to just feel flattered that Formerly apparently lives and breaths to read my words, but the stalking is just getting creepy.
Posted by: Deusx | October 25, 2006 at 10:18 AM
Did everyone who works for starbucks, besides the asm and managers, get the starbuck's raise? I didn't.
Posted by: ELIZABETH91674 | October 30, 2006 at 10:35 AM
it depends on where you live...
you will get a raise, although it may not be until january or march.
they are doing it all in cycles
(places where the needs are the greatest get it first, then it'll filter down eventually)
Posted by: | October 30, 2006 at 02:56 PM
so i am suspended for not doing something about a sexual harrasment at has just been filed at my store? why u say well everybody was joking around and one of the partners touch and then grabed another girls boobies she did not say any thing at the moment nor him and me being the shift i did not stop it so now i waite any body have an idea of whats going to happend
Posted by: bee | March 12, 2007 at 06:10 PM