« St. Louis coffeehouse owners team up as Starbucks expands in the area | Main | Starbucks closes its controversial Forbidden City store in Beijing »

July 12, 2007

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Tei

Can not fire an accused sexual abuser...what a crook. They can suspend anyone while an investigation goes on. In my store we fired a woman who would not leave a young man along. Her behavior was disgusting, at first it seemed like a joke but it got so bad that she was out the door. Our manager fired her after the proper procedures.
I do wonder how the young girl was forced to go to these parties, time after time after time.

Anonymous

Personally, I think it's better to call the cops first than corporate, that way the 'higher ups' cannot cover it up. If the cops are alerted first, they'll press charges and arrest that person.

It's a crime to sexually harass someone. If corporate can't get it in their heads, they have no reason to stay on their jobs. If I were the store manager, I would'nt put up with it.

That's my opinion.

Barista Bryan

Sounds like bs to me. They just want their 15 minutes of fame and a lot of dough for it. I wonder how many other pending lawsuits this family has going on? Where are the tapes? Like Tei said, who forced her to go to the parties? Plus, if he groped her at work, where are the videos from the store showing this? I've seen people fired from Starbucks for sexual harrasment for just asking out another partner, so don't give us any crap about how they couldn't terminate this guy.
Starbucks better get out their galloshes for this one, it's getting deep.

Herman M.

It is obvious she had a cell phone as there is reference to text messages. Not so hard here in a statutory rape situation (which this would be) the wireless provider should be drooling all over themselves to be good citizens and cooperate on identifying that this happened.

Second, I don't think I've seen a teenager lately whose cell phone didn't have a camera. If she was being "forced" to do anything, I find it hard to believe there is not photographic evidence of some kind, of at least the offender at a party.

Third: all she had to do when management dragged their heels was call partner resources. I guarantee that if she said "sexual harassment" someone would have dumped the entire hard drive to watch the video, the offending partner would have been suspended before he knew what hit him, and in all likelihood the managers and DM would have been dealt with for failing to manage the situation.

Why am I so sure? We had a partner who was acting inappropriately at one of my stores. One call by the boss to see what she needed to do to make everything kosher, and our security system was on fire with folks watching video, the partner had the DM show up on his shift the next day to collect his keys and put him on suspension, and two days later he was no more.

All because someone called to ask the proper course of action. This tells me that never happened here.

Partners, if you ever have a doubt about something, call your partner resources representative. They will set you straight or go to bat for you if you've been wronged. That said, don't bother them with small stuff as you will be the partner that cried wolf when you really need them.

Donald W. Pfeffer

I'm trying to figure out how Starbucks is at fault here. Giving the poor girl the benefit of the doubt and assuming she's making these claims up, it's not the company's fault one of her supervisor's sexually assaulted her. I guess she's upset that Starbucks didn't fire him, but, frankly, why would they? I'm glad I work for a company that won't fire somebody just based on the accusations of an employee. I do think an investigation should have taken place, however.

Kat

I don't know if it's true or not, but if it was MY daughter I would have called the police, not contacted Starbucks.

Personally, I think it's better to call the cops first than corporate, that way the 'higher ups' cannot cover it up. If the cops are alerted first, they'll press charges and arrest that person.

It's a crime to sexually harass someone. If corporate can't get it in their heads, they have no reason to stay on their jobs


You know what anonymous, I've said it before but I'll say it again, you are an ass. First of all, corporate did not molest this girl, nor did they cover anything up, it is all under investigation. Don't speak if you don't know what you're talking about please.

Shift Supervisor

HUNDREDS of Times...COME ON! HUNDREDS! Seriously, Sbux is not at fault here, sounds more like a relationship gone sour......her 15 minutes are up.

Darleen

I hate to say it but I don't think I believe it either. I know if I were put in that position I would not be going to parties with the person who was harassing me. 100 times does sound excessive as well, why wouldn't you do something after one time? I understand she was young, maybe intimidated, but 100 times? Surely you would quit if nothing else. Being a woman, I would normally side with the female, just human nature I suppose but I have to call bull shit. I hope this gets investigated and if she is telling the truth the supervisor gets terminated and prosecuted, however if the young girl is not being honest, she needs to be prosecuted for false accusations. I'm so glad nothing like this has ever occurred at my store. I'm amazed it took so long for something to come out.

Oh no! This story is nothing new. It just finally got bigger attention than most. Most of the situations that I have been privy to were relationships that had gone wrong and persons involved were fired for their actions.(i.e. management dating minors so forth and so on) Starbucks takes these matters very seriously and if the child's accusations are true, the investigation will show. Please remember we do not lynch people anymore there is a thing called due process. Just because Starbucks did not jump when the parents told them to does not mean that Starbucks is not doing their job. It would be a crime if Starbucks were to fire someone for something they did not do because of pressure from the parents.

Anonymous

re:
You know what anonymous, I've said it before but I'll say it again, you are an ass. First of all, corporate did not molest this girl, nor did they cover anything up, it is all under investigation. Don't speak if you don't know what you're talking about please.


No, you are an ass. You don't GET it. If there was sexual harassment involved, cops should be contacted FIRST, regardles. I was NOT talking about Corporate harassing the girl but rather the irresponsibility of them to 'look the other way'.

Those who look the other way should go to jail for not doing anything about it. I know for a fact that there was a SM that did the sexual harassment thing and she's a woman. It happened back in spring/summer of 2004 while I was transferring there.
The result? She got transferred. Starbucks tried to put on a 'smiley face' on the situation when one of the partners blew the whistle on a local newspaper on the situation because the DM would. NOT. DO. JACK. SHIT. And did'nt want everyone to 'rock the boat'.

He fired the partner(s) who complained...then they got a lawyer...the DM back-tracked, kissed ASS and re-instated them back to their jobs.

The SM, the guilty party, then lost her job because there were witnesses who saw her do it.

It's easy for the higher ups to look the other way and cover things up. I don't profess to know everything. But in many industries from white to blue collar companies, there are ways to do it. And Starbucks is NOT innocent.

smalrus

Most companies require that alleged crimes occurring by employees on company grounds are investigated by the company before the police are involved. There are legal obligations and reasons why this is so.

Though I did not work at a Starbucks, I've worked at a bank. There have been cases of internal theft which, in spite of the fact that stealing $20,000 is grand larceny, were not legally allowed to involve police.

This is no different than the fact that there are certain child abuse cases where police cannot intervene until someone from Child and Family Services intervenes.

It all sounds bogus and illogical, but unfortunately our litigious society prevents common sense from taking over and doing the right thing.

whoo hoo! lets all blame the victim and protect the honor of our precious corporate conglomorate!

anonymous,
no, you are the dumb ass, the article states this:

"The manager, according to the lawsuit, told the parents that "Starbucks' policies did not allow her to fire or suspend" the supervisor accused of sexual abuse. It was unclear Wednesday if that supervisor still was employed at Starbucks."

When speaking to someone from the corporate arena, they were told starbucks did not know of the incident and could not speak to it as of yet. Corporate did not cover this up the store manager did. You need to wait until the investgation is over before you decide to be come court and jury. Lynch mob menality here at its finest. If you work for starbucks, that is no way to show your support for your company.And again, your an ass.

that's mentality...

Kathi

I tried to post this earlier but for some reason it didn't "take" --

If you've never been taken advantage of by an authority figure in the fashion this young woman (allegedly) was ... you're not in any position to determine what she could or couldn't, should or shouldn't have done.

I was - and I never told anyone about it. I was 13, maybe 14 when it happened. Hundreds of times? Oh yes. Willingly on my part? Well, mostly, except I knew if I refused I'd be fired, and my parents would find out, and the boss (who was a nice older man) would be in trouble, and my mind imagined a hundred things worse that might happen. I can imagine that if my folks had somehow found out, they would have had a similar reaction to what these parents are doing.

"Hundreds of times? Oh yes. Willingly on my part? Well, mostly"

Well if it was mostly willing then I'm sorry to say you are not a victim, although you may want to play that role to ease your guilt. A willing participant is not a victim.

To: Jul 13, 2007 2:05:13 PM

A 13 yr old or a minor is not deemed legally able to be
" a willing participant" as you so uncompassionatly put it.
I agree with the poster above when they said that unless we've been in the same position, we shouldn't comment ( or judge or speculate...).
I sugest in the strongest possibe terms that we all refrain from flippant speculation on this one. This forum may be open and America may be a free country, BUT compassion needs to rule here, and we all need to think before we post.

Darleen

"I sugest in the strongest possibe terms that we all refrain from flippant speculation on this one. This forum may be open and America may be a free country, BUT compassion needs to rule here, and we all need to think before we post."

Well said no name, well said. I like the way you think!!

BaristainLodi

So that is why all our S.M.'s and A.S.M.'s are going through 2 hrs of sexual harrasment training.

Thanks Darleen, I appreciate the support. :)
Signed, NoName

Emily

Just like any workplace, Starbucks is run by people in the stores not the higher ups. I firmly believe that an incident such as this could happened and has probably happened before. Working there I have seen a lot, maybe not as bad, but these things would still make your head spin. Trust me.

Kat

"Well if it was mostly willing then I'm sorry to say you are not a victim, although you may want to play that role to ease your guilt. A willing participant is not a victim."

I strongly disagree, especially when a minor is involved. Kids don't always understand what it going on, or the consequences. Kids don't think like adults. Not to mention it's simply against the law, I don't care how 'willing' the minor was.

PPID911

Kathi,

I call bullshit on you.

You were molested or sexually harassed as a child... Don't tell anyone... not even your parents... but then write about it on a Starbucks Gossip board? Sounds fishy to meeeeee.

This girl is so just gold digging. She shoulda chosen a company who's stock price is going up, not falling......

woe is i

Must be 18 to work at Sbux here. I can see now why it's a good policy. Probably helps to avoid SOME of the problem situations brought on when minors are in a work place. (Not saying that it's the minors fault.....)

CoffeeMaker

If you are ever a victim of harassment call Partner Resources. This is how you report these things to corporate.

An SM's hands are tied to some extent when dealing with an HR issue, especially one that alleges illegal activity. They would call partner resources start an inquiry and most likely get the SS out of the store right away. The reason being not to give a creep legal recourse to keep his job. In this case the article is unclear as to whether the SM was even the susspect SS's boss.

Did the SM in this case say they "weren't doing anything about it", or did they say "THEY can't fire or suspend him"? Do you understand the difference? It may not seem right on alot of levels, but criminals have rights.

From the information in the article it's unclear whether the SM or Starbucks did anything that could be considered negligent. My interpretation is that this IS a relationship gone wrong, and also a harassment case. The girl was most like manipulated by this 24yo SS. Sexual harassment is not any single defined act, its how acts are perceived by the victim.

We had a shift supervisor that was doing some pretty gross thins sexually at our store. I can say it was handled incredibly poorly. Our SM went on a witch hunt, asking questions of every employee in the store. I rarely worked with that ss, and was out of the state during his "activities". The DM did fire the creep, but not before our SM did all kinds of damage with his witch hunt. All he needed was the accusers statement, and another to back it up, which he had. If the guy had not been guilty of what he was doing, he would have had a great suit for the SM's conduct. BTW, my store didn't have cameras.

We had a shift supervisor that was doing some pretty gross thins sexually at our store. I can say it was handled incredibly poorly. Our SM went on a witch hunt, asking questions of every employee in the store. I rarely worked with that ss, and was out of the state during his "activities". The DM did fire the creep, but not before our SM did all kinds of damage with his witch hunt. All he needed was the accusers statement, and another to back it up, which he had. If the guy had not been guilty of what he was doing, he would have had a great suit for the SM's conduct. BTW, my store didn't have cameras.

We had a shift supervisor that was doing some pretty gross thins sexually at our store. I can say it was handled incredibly poorly. Our SM went on a witch hunt, asking questions of every employee in the store. I rarely worked with that ss, and was out of the state during his "activities". The DM did fire the creep, but not before our SM did all kinds of damage with his witch hunt. All he needed was the accusers statement, and another to back it up, which he had. If the guy had not been guilty of what he was doing, he would have had a great suit for the SM's conduct. BTW, my store didn't have cameras.

EX-BARISTA

To all those posting who think such a thing is not possible, or that corporate wouldn't cover it up - you are deluded.

At my (previous) store, we had an assistant manager who got the "pedophile priest" treatment for his constant harassing of subordinates - the company simply moved him to another store anytime someone finally got pissed off enough to bypass our DM (who just ignored such complaints) and complain to corporate. Our store was his fourth.

Now, granted, we live in a VERY tight labor market here and I understand that it's very hard to find anybody willing to work for the poverty-level wages of an assistant store manager (no offense, folks, but if you're working at a Starbucks here in San Diego you are making de facto poverty wages, sorry) but that still doesn't excuse corporate's actions. The SOB should have been fired on his first violation.

He was never fired, by the way. He eventually left the store and the state.

I'm also kind of surprised that the store would have hired a minor in the first place - I know there's no official policy stating that a store can't hire minors, but I do know it's generally not done. My old store has hired one in the last seven years.

PS: I left the bux in 2003. I read some posts above that seem to indicate a lot of the stores have video cameras. Is this common? Ours didn't and in talking to my former manager the other day, still doesn't. I'm curious.

Barista Bryan

Ex-barista-
Most of the stores (especially the new ones) here in Sandy Eggo (old joke, sorry) have cameras. Good thing too, cause here in the middle of El Cajon, you never know what'll happen.

Horse Apple

Bull Shit! Every partner is givin Starbuck's Anti-Harassment policy when they are hired in multiple forms. It is an integral part of every first impression. Any claim on the grounds of an SM that they did not have the ability to suspend or fire over sexual harassment is bogus.

Suspend partner, conduct investigation. Then, take action. While its true that SMs and ASMs cannot be in the store 24-7 and therefore cannot be privy to all the goings on, Shift Supervisors and high-profile barstas are there, whose word can and should be sought and respected.

One commenter claimed that their SM went on a "witch-hunt," while I do not know the specifics there, it is imperative to understand the vision and blindness inherent in managerial positions. They cannot see all. Conducted with dignity and respect, an investigation can be made that taps the knowledge of shifts and partners.

Poo on any ASM, SM, DM, etc. who thinks action cannot be taken to protect Starbuck's number 1 asset, its partners.

SMs & ASMs are required to go through anti-harassment training annually. This case case just happens to coincide with the timing of the training this year.

An old friend...

The girl is unnamed in all public statements because she was a minor when this happened. She was, in fact, forced to do these things. I can't say anything else without breaking my word. She's an old friend of mine.

Marie Martin

Boycott irresponsible corporations that only care about their bucks - boycott Starbucks!

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Search Site

Ads (2)