Woman's age discrimination suit against Starbucks is going to trial

A federal judge has denied a request by Starbucks to dismiss an age discrimination lawsuit filed last year by a 56-year-old Portland, Maine woman who says she submitted multiple applications, but was never hired as a barista. The order clears the way for a civil trial in February unless a settlement is reached earlier. Deborah Boyajian wants over $300,000 from Starbucks || Read "Suit against Starbucks going to trial" || Earlier coverage of this case

Comments

[Jeff Banks]

Uh, no lady. Starbucks didn't hire you because you are old, but because you are a greedy bitch who probably has tried to randomly sue other large corporations in the past.

Motion to dismiss.

[Ephlan]

c'mon, Just hire her and then throw her on DTE during a rush. After a few hours of that she will run away in tears or piss enough customers off for you to fire her. Someone with that big of an ego is bound to fail.

[peaches]

I wish it worked like that. The kind of people who sue over stuff like this are the kind of people who don't realize their affect on customer service. I've worked with those people before, and they don't get it. Drive thru will be backed up, customers will be crowded around the hand off plane, and they will think they are doing a great job because they're moving faster than they usually do.

Some people aren't smart enough to realize how much they're failing.

[jay]

so now, if you DON'T get hired as a barista at starbucks you can sue. if you get hired you can sue. what if you can't get out of your bed at home because you're too lazy? can you sue starbucks for not motivating you? throw this woman, and her lawsuit, out the door. it is people like her, who fail to look at their own inadequacies and poor people skills, who then sue to try and make up for the fact that numerous managers saw her for what she really was: a problem.
note to the woman who is suing: you are pathetic.

And now she is suing starbucks and Jim for letting them allow us to call her names... bi+ch! ;-)

[Melody]

I can't pass judgment so quickly. I've definitely heard someone at the SSC tell me that the typical barista is age 18 - 22. Store managers are not often much older. Of course Starbucks has many older employees in the stores, but the typical age group for baristas is that 18- 22 age group.

It's true, there's often an active "generation gap" that makes it hard for people to understand each other. There have been many times I walk up to the register and order, and I realize that I've been drinking Starbucks coffee longer than the barista has been alive.

This is the kind of case that protects all of us who will eventually be 56. I hope when I'm that age, I'm dealt with just as a person and not seen as a person 'too old' for the job, despite that that IS often the unspoken issue at hand.

Of course, when I'm 56, god forbid that I WANT to work at a Starbucks. It just looks like too hard of work from the customer perspective.

Let her have her day in court.

[chris]

jeff banks: what an ugly attitude. discrimination is wrong and she has a right to her day in court. you should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting otherwise.

the question will be if she can prove they didn't hire people of her age group. if there is a pattern (and jeez... that should be a no brainer) then she has a case, if starbucks has enough older baristas in her area then it'll be dismissed.

oh, and she'd pay the court costs.

So can I apply for Uncle Howies Job and if they reject me (because his job is taken by himself) I can sue for lost income, lost pleasure and whatever else just comes to my mind on the way to court? I would like 20 million, if she gets 300,000 for an application as a barista. Where do I have to leave my bank account nr. for the wire?

[barista351]

No offense to folks who are in their fifties. But my experience with older baristas is: THEY CAN'T DO IT! The only exception might be a career waitress, but for the most part, men and women over 40 can't keep up. They are slow, they can't multi-task, and they drag down the entire process. We had one man and one woman who worked for about 4 months and still couldn't call a drink to save their life, and never made it to the bar during a rush. Sorry! It's the truth!

[Melody]

@anon: Posted by: | November 28, 2008 at 10:15 AM

Answering your question, though I know you were just posting for sarcastic effect, I am going to give you a serious answer:
(i) Uncle Howard's job would have to be in fact open
(ii) You would need to be able to demonstrate that you're definitely qualified for it before you'd start have a case. And by the way, not many people can demonstrate that they're ready to step in and run a billion dollar corporation.
(iii) You would have to be over 40
(iv) You would have to apply
(v) You would have to observe that the new CEO (who DID get the job) is under 40 and at least seemingly less qualified. Consider education, prior experience running large corporations, and whatever ...
(vi) sure, then you *might* have a case.

[Melody]

*[quote=barista351]No offense to folks who are in their fifties. But my experience with older baristas is: THEY CAN'T DO IT! [/quote]*

However the law does not allow you to make that assumption. If you have a qualified application, over age 40, you're not allowed to NOT hire *solely* based on the reasoning "Well, I'm going to hire this 25 year old because she will have a lot more energy, and probably this 56 year old (or insert any age over 40) won't be able to keep up."

Welcome to age discrimination.

[rocker]

What is a woman in her 50's doing trying to get a job at sb?I mean really what went wrong in her life that all she can try for is an entry level position

[Me]

Yes Melody, I was only posting for the sarcastic effect. Sorry I forgot to fill in my name. Thanks for your answer anyways. I guess I don't have a case right now. Might become different once Howie leaves. ;-)
Whatever happened to freedom of hiring? Can't I hire whoever think fits best to me, myself, my company and most of all, my coworkers. They would have to work together as a team. So I wouldn't hire a 16 year old into a store full of 40 year olds and above. Same is the other way around. Best of course is if you have a healthy mix with enough people bridging the age gap. Problem is, most Baristas are either students (hence young) or older people trying to get out of the house once the kids are old enough to take care of themselves (like going to University etc.). You will find only a few in between.
At my store right now there is noone above 40. But we used to have a bunch of them. Actually, they were the wildest, but this is another chapter. Since the majority is end 20 even the two 16 year olds don't seem to fit in. It's all in the personality, not the age. Some people are just not a good fit or don't have good references. As long as you can choose, I as a SM would always choose the one I expect to be the least trouble. And this is not necessary the teenager...
Why I made that sarcastic comment above is, I hate people trying to create a case and then trying to sue a company for damages. How could she possibly get damages of 300,000 Dollar? At an average Barista rate (9.00) this would be more than 18 years non stop 35 hours a week! No vacation, no sick time.
So now tell me how many of these kind of Baristas do we know?

And if starbucks doesn't hire me, common sense tells me to try it somewhere else. Not to sue.
I've known people trying to sue because they didn't get the apartment they wanted so badly, but the other guy out of 25 competitors got it. Where is this going to end? People buying hot coffee, spilling it all over themselves and suing starbucks again, oh, wait, this happens all the time. Only in America...

[P.R.I.D.E.]

I can tell a lot of these comments are made from an under 25 crowd, based on the faulty assumptions made time and time again that it is age itself that determines a good hire for Sbux.

The reality here is that while we cannot discriminate against age, NO ONE should get any special treatment just because they are older, of a certain race, sexual orientation, etc. It is all about providing EQUAL opportunity.

It has been my experience that the use of our behavioral based interviewing, which looks at competency strength, actually makes a difference in getting the right hire. This store had better HOPE that they have their SARI notes on file from this gal's interview, as well as the application that will demonstrate a lack of availability, or poor responses to the verbal questions, or some other piece of evidence.

What this SHOULD prove to all management in stores is you need to be following a systematic process for hiring in your store. Keep records. Actually use the hiring decks and keep your notes on file for 12 months, then send them to your corporate office for storage for an additional 12 months.

Most times, lawsuits like this are won because the company does a poor job of retaining evidence, not necessarily because they did anything wrong.

[Me]

Rocker, there might be plenty of reasons. - She was a staying home mom all her life, trying to find a job now.
- She is a staying home mom, trying to get a few hours worth of extra money.
- she couldn't hold any job previously in her live
- she is looking for a second job with flexible hours
- she is an immigrant and her previous, foreign experience isn't acknowleged
- she is looking for a big, rich company to sue...
-etc.

wow. I had to apply "multiple" times before I finally found a store that would even give me an interview. maybe I should have gotten some money out of that deal. pfft.

[P.R.I.D.E.]

Me- you are really the class example of a partner that I would fear holding a management role. Some of what you just posted has completely frightened me, and should frighten the lawyers working up at the SSC as well.

Ever heard of a concept of diversity? It's kind of what Starbucks was built on, and your "freedom of hiring" argument sounds like blatent discrimination to me. When you try to "guestimate" who will give you the "least amount of trouble", what you are really doing is using your unconscience bias (aka your "gut") which is not objective, rational, and is based on limited first hand experience you've had in your short career.

Be very, very careful partners, this is serious business. Use a systematic process that is objective to weed out great hires from not-so-great hires. And if the only people you are hiring are the youngen's and the occasional random older person, you're reacting simply to what walks into your store.

Go out and find the talent. Bring them into your store. Whatever happened to managing and taking ownership of your store? I swear!

[GRTL]

Umm...have any of you lived in Maine. There isn't a lot of jobs to be had there. If you are 56 and can't find employment you will take whatever you can get. And how easy is insurance to come by even if you get a regular job in this company. Oh and I work with a barista in their 50s as well and they do a damn fine job at it.

[sbuxnewbie]

Hmmm...

I'm over 50. There are only two others over 40 at my store (one is the manager), and just one in her 30s - everyone else ranges from 17 to 25.

When I was hired, nearly 3 years ago, the manager who hired me was still younger than I was.

My DM is younger than I am. Actually, in the district, I know of only two partners who are older than I am, both hired after I was.

What I haven't seen is people older than I am applying. One regular was toying with the idea when she retires from her job as a server at a banquet house, but that's about it.

Can we old farts keep up?

You betcha - sometimes it is the young turks that can't keep up with us.

[Me]

P.R.I.D.E. aren't you a bit biased as well?
I even said "Best of course is if you have a healthy mix with enough people bridging the age gap."
But sometimes this doesn't happen. You take over a store full of teenagers, so first thing you do is trying to hire people according to their age, to make sure your store is diverse enough? I don't think so. Not in real life. And especially not if you are a early twenty something SM.
My store is actually actively trying to find people above thirty, just because my SM thinks this would help her scheduling dilemma during exam times. Still there aren't many applying and the few that are, she had to give a pass. I don't know the details of course, since they are confidential, but I had the impression, they weren't flexible enough, expected a better pay or weren't interested anymore after they weren't promised any hours at all.
And in the end, I say again, it comes down to the personality.
I wouldn't hire someone my guts tell me it is a great person but the interview went the wrong way. But I would still not hire someone with a perfect interview, if my guts tell me not to. And this has nothing at all to do with race, gender, age, hair colour or whatsoever. This has to do with my peace of mind at my workplace.
Of course I could be wrong, but I take the chance to never find it out.

And by suing now, didn't she prove she is no good fit? What would have happened after the first time she spilled coffee on herself, burned her hand on the oven, touched a hot steam wand, or would have been asked to stay half an hour longer?

I still see a difference between discrimination and just not hiring someone. I'm sure starbucks overall has enough examples of people above forty working for them successfully.

And on another note, I probably wouldn't feel so strong about it all if it wouldn't just look like greed to me. If she would sue to get the job, so be it. Give her her chance in a store. But if she is in for the quick buck, which it seems to be, this is just plain WRONG!

Oh, and taking ownership of your store, this is long history. At least in my region.

[Me]

Melody, just for me to understand the age discrimination law a bit better.
Do you mean if I have two totally identical applicants, one of them is 20 the other 50, I would have to hire the 50 year old just to avoid someone being able to sue me for discrimination? Wouldn't that in itself be discrimination to the young?
Or would I have to search until I find a better applicant than both of them to avoid a deadlock?
I'm confused.

[Melody]

Me,
If you have 2 identical candidates for a position: One is age 20 and one is age 50. You hire the 20 year-old. If the 50 year-old comes back to you and says basically, "you didn't hire me because I'm 50!" then you're going to have to be able tell a court of a law NON age-related reason why you hired the 20 year-old.

If you said, "well, it looked to me like the 20 year-old had a lot more availability for the store" then you've given a NON age related reason.

If you said, "I want someone who will be at my store 10 years, and 50 is just too close to retirement age" then you've given an age related reason that won't hold up in front of a jury - you made the assumption based on her age that she'd be out the door sooner (retiring) than the 20 year-old.

If it were me, and I had two identical candidates, one being 20 and the other 50, I would DEFINITELY hire the 50 year-old so that my floor would look a little more diverse. (Assuming that they really are equals). There's no law preventing me from doing that.

The problem of being over 40 and looking for a job is that people DO start to make wrong assumptions like "that person won't be able to keep up because she is 45" OR "I'm not going to hire someone so close to retirement because she's not going to stick around" OR "My other employees are all young and won't relate to a 40 year-old so I'd better not hire her ..."

*[quote=But sometimes this doesn't happen. You take over a store full of teenagers, so first thing you do is trying to hire people according to their age, to make sure your store is diverse enough? I don't think so. Not in real life. And especially not if you are a early twenty something SM.
My store is actually actively trying to find people above thirty,[/quote]*

A store full of teenagers? And by the way THIRTY is SO young!!!!! And are you saying the twenty-something SM isn't interesting in hiring people in their 40s or 50s? (To be fair, since the age where age discrimination law kicks in is 40, we're not worried about those young 30 year-olds)

I would wonder about a store full of teenagers. Most Starbucks that I visit DO have a range of baristas, and that's partly because people have stayed with the company so long. If no-one is staying at the store, I'd wonder how it ended up like that.

[Melody]

By the way, this kind of a case is a perfect example of why we have jury trials. Perfect. Let's say, you say "the 20 year old was available for more hours" and the 50 year old thinks "I'm not sure I believe that. There's a real pattern of only hiring in that 18 to 22 age bracket, and I think that's an excuse"

Well, if it gets pushed to a jury trial, and jury figures out who they believe: Is the store manager telling the truth? Is she covering up because what she really believes is that 50 year-olds can't keep up? Juries are allowed to make inferences from the evidence. What is the store's hiring pattern? Do they hire people in protected categories?

You win some, you lose some in front of juries . I read the article linked to above, and at least imho I thought she has enough to take this before a jury (I don't really know enough obviously). Let her have her day in court.

[Zipy]

Honestly, the age range for starbucks isn't so much because younger people are 'better' it is because this is retail. Check out jamba-juice, McDonalds, etc - the age range to fast food retail tends to be younger.

Older people tend to, forgive me, have better experience and better jobs. Making what we make at Sbux as a barista doesn't attract high quality college graduates. We get the people still going through school who want to work 20 hours a week at random times each day. The mom looking for a part time job, or sometimes a 2nd job.

This job attracts more young people. I am willing to bet 3 times as many younger people apply then older.

[Me]

Thank you melody!

My store really has a high turnover rate, including 5 SMs in less than 2 years, while the actual one is already there for a year. And yes we have SSs in their early twenties (except for one), Baristas are all but one (me) teenagers, and the SM is just mid thirty. The SM is trying hard to find anyone above 30 which means she wouldn't mind 40, 50 or 60 year olds. They are just not out there. Or at least not applying to our store. The ones that are, seem to not fit for whatever reason.

[mike6545]

We've had and have people over 40 at our store and yes, it's true, they are definatly slower. Even our manager who is in her late 40's would never be able to keep up with the other baristas. Just recently she fired a barista who was 47 and couldn't multi-task, remember a single recipe, and couldn't even call drinks close correctly. And another barista quit because she said it was a too hard and too fast paced job for someone her age. She went to work as an appointment maker somewhere else.

Even if i am a young barista, i am saying this out of expierience working with older baristas. I'm pretty sure there is many adult baristas in her area and i know there is in the US. If anything, all she should get is a free tall beverage coupon and the link to careerbuilder.com

[k]

I was 50 when I was hired at a "SBux... (I needed the job because I hadn't worked anywhere in years and there wasn't much out there for me to beef my resume up with and I NEEDED the money and benefits due to divorce)...long story short, I ended up as an SM in my original store...I pulled and preferred DT morning shift because I could get the numbers (between 50 and 60 transactions per half with only a 3 car lead in)... My store ranged between number 4 and number 8 fastest Starbucks DT in AMERICA ..."my" shift was the busiest for our store...so all you young whippersnappers get a grip!
As for the woman who is suing...who knows whats up with that?? She could have a valid point or she may just be nuts...we'll all have to wait and see...
BTW, I was promoted to ASM after only 2 years with the company...another story...a disaster story, but we "OLD" people can be just as good as you young ones...oh, and another thing...the person who became SM after my promotion was in her mid 40's and thats because she too could pull the DT numbers that this very busy store needed...when no one else could or wanted to! Sheesh!
PS-Oooops! Guess this wasn't a long story short thing afterall.
PPS- Hey Scar!!!

[JC]

Melody,
Since you've appointed yourself general counsel of this website, remember the age 40 cutoff relates only to the federal age law prohibiting discrimination. There are some state laws that go below 40, or protect against age decisions regardless of one's age.

[BC]

the average age of baristas is mid-20s, not 18-22. The avg age for store managers is over 30, not 20-something.

not that anyone lets the facts get in the way on this site.

[FLA SM]

As an over-40 SM, first let me say to all those who say think I wouldn't be able to keep up with them because they're younger: put your money where your mouth is. I'd be willing to bet I could run circles around you for much longer than you could take it.

When I hire, the first (and most important) thing I look at is availability. That being said, it's been my experience that the over-40 applicants tend to have less availability than the younger applicants. Why? Usually because it's a second job, or they are retired or semi-retired and don't want to work full-time. When I see limited availability, I don't even schedule an interview. Why waste my time? (Notice I wrote "tend to" and "usually.")
But, guess what? I have one shift over 50, two shifts over 40, one barista over 30, and no minors. Why? Availability! They all have the availability I expect in a full-time partner.

Hey, just to make you think a little, go back and re-read all the posts but replace the references about older people to black people, and change the references about younger people to white people. Hmmmmm.

[Melody]

JC - funny. Yes, of course you're right that there may be state and or local laws at issue too when considering whether there is age discrimination. My point was just that she should get her day in court. I sure as heck am not legal counsel for ANYONE on this site, and this definitely is not my area of the law ...if the legal stuff is too dull, I'll just refrain from posting it.

[Scribelrus]

Oy. We have some older partners in my region--my old manager was in his 50s and the Bux next to my house has a newish partner who's sixty (he's the most adorable old man!) and my hiring manager was 40.
That said, unless there's good proof that she was denied based on her age, that lawsuit will probably go out the window. If not, I doubt she'll get $300k in damages.

[jabanga]

i find that the reactions to lawsuits around here are about as knee-jerk as the reactions to union issues. let's see: the judge reviews the facts of the case and sends it to a jury trial...yet people here with no familiarity of the facts of the case immediately go into attack mode and accuse the woman of being a "whack-job" and ridicule the case. doesn't the fact that the case is progressing indicate that perhaps it does have some merit and in fact if it turns out that it did not she will in fact lose her case?

[ShiftyinNV]

The finest barista I ever worked with was in his 50s. He was lightning fast and customers loved him.

I wouldn't be so quick to judge.

(I myself haven't seen 22 for awhile) :)

[RTFC]

Wow. Love listening to people who know nothing of a case spout off on its merits. As one who lives in Maine and has a law license, I've followed this case with a bit of curiosity. From what I know of the case, which is rather a lot, there are genuine questions of fact and law in issue. It is worth noting that this is not a case of a sleazy lawyer running with a sketchy case in hopes of an annoyance payoff. The plaintiff here originally filed her complaint with the Maine Human Rights Commission, which investigated her claims and found grounds for a lawsuit.

At the core of her complaint is that the manager of the Hay Building Starbucks ignored company hiring guidelines and lied to her about the reason(s) she was not hired. Apparently, of the 19 employees hired by the manager, none were over the age of 30.

I doubt Starbucks as a whole actively engages in age discrimination. That said, it seems very likely that this manager did so...and Starbucks, like it or not, is responsible for the discriminatory actions/behaviors of their manager undertaken within the scope of their authority.

[Me]

I like melodys view on things and even ask for her opinion (sometimes even as a lawer). so please go on melody. Thank you!

Some of the 20-year-olds at my store are brilliant, some suck, the same goes for the 40- to 50-year olds.

If you're bad-mouthing people based on their age group, I'll assume your own experiences with that group have been bad. Or maybe your just really insecure about yourself...either way, don't be so close-minded.

[JC]

Why are generalizations about age improper? We make (legitimate) judgments about age all the time. You cannot drive a car until you reach a certain age. Same for voting, drinking, owning a gun, and serving in the military. You cannot be President unless you're at least 35. I forget the age for the Senate. At 65 you get social security. Women usually lose the ability to birth children in their 40s. Many places have mandatory retirement ages, often at 70. There are "senior discounts" and child discounts.

The point is -- we make judgments and generalizations and decisions by age all the time.

[SPORK]

Wow! People are jumping on this woman so quickly!

The fact of the matter is, I am SO proud of Starbucks' equal hiring rules. One of my fellow baristas, a transsexual has told us that she would be denied employement for some of the most absurd reasons. I stand and applaud ANYONE who decides to fight Corporate (North) America's unfair and discriminatory schemas. Starbucks needs to be kept aware of its commitment no matter how big of a bigot its managers can be. Not saying this woman is right, nor that her manager was discriminating. However, I am saying that to dismiss her as a "liar" or a "bitch" is disgusting. You should all reconsider what it means to work for this company. Blindly defending it is NOT being loyal, it's being IGNORANT!!!

[Melissa]

Starbucks is a skill. We make it look easy, but it requires a lot of multitasking, looking ahead, and putting out fires that arise all day. I hired and fired a 20 year old who could not get the job, and I fired a 47 year old with MS who, despite getting trained for probably 100 hours, could not do the job. Would not ring for more than 2 hours, and got rude if she had to, could not remember a single drink at bar, but complained when we wouldn't let her on it, and just wanted to bus the cafe. Well, I had hired a 16 year old girl with Down's Syndrome to do that. So this lady resorted to tardiness and stealing tips when we asked her to do her job, as a barista. I treated her with respect, accomodated her as best I could. My one store had 3 women over 40, and they kicked ass. I had a 56 year old man who could only ring and do cleaning. How rewarding is the job to him? And the 20 year old who just couldn't get it. It had nothing to do with age. People don't take their applications to Starbucks seriously. I recieved so many that were incomplete, no history, no references, and then they ask why they never got a callback.
This woman should be ashamed of herself. She is money hungry, and doesn't want to work. She'd sue if she got hired for some reason, I am sure.

[California Barista]

This lady is a crackpot! To assume that you were not hired because of your age...really...maybe it was because you were a real dud! In my store there are 20 partners..there are 4 of us in the 45-55 range (I am one of them), 8 in the 30-45 range and the remainder are younger. All 20 of us can kick ass..age does not matter.
To give this lady a day in court is a shame. I agree they should have hired her and stuck her in a busy drive-thru store..she would have quit by now.

[The ASM]

I'm 22yrs old, I hired a 73yr old. THere are lots of great ppl out there. I think this lady is P.O.ed because she probably is low on monay and wanted something to get her through this hard economic time. It makes ppl go crazy when your in a depression, so I hate that she is doing it -but I >Almost< understand.

It's tough... I think I see where everyone is coming from... but no putting her on a busy drive thru wouldn't have worked. I had a woman (gut reaction was don't hire her but I did anyway) who just couldn't get it. Every time we had a one on one she wanted it documented and copied. She always brought up her lawyer. She scared me, but in the end I had to let her go. She still goes in to other stores and can't order her drink. She really thought she was great. customers constantly complained to me and the other management team. I can't help but see this Maine woman as the woman I let go. I still do my SARI decks and interview applications that look good but I worry that subconsciously I will remember her when I interview women over 55. Have I met anyone that was good over 50? no. Does that mean they don't exist? No. Do I want to hire diversely because it's good for the store environment? yes. Do I want to do it because I'll be sued if I don't? No. The whole thing just sucks.

(oh in response to a previous post: if someone came to me and had had multiple jobs no matter what the age I wouldn't hire them; if they had never worked I wouldn't hire them; no food or retail service? nope. People need to realize this job isn't easy. Not everyone can do it.)

[peaches]

seriously?

[peaches]

ps. that "seriously" is aimed at "the asm"

I realize that I don't know the person you hired, but even so, I am skeptical.

[Mrs. Tillinghamshackles]

FLA SM,
Every partner at your store has completely open availability?

I'm impressed.

[Kathy]

As someone who has had to sue an employer to get accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act I understand the frustration, however I believe there is more here than we know. I would like to know what evidence she has against the company. Is there documented evidence? or just verbal responces? Did someone else witness these responces? My first reaction too was that this is someone who is sue happy but there could be more here than we are aware of at this time.
Melody, RTFC please keep posting, your enlightened opinions are much needed.

[jay]

i have been getting more applications in the last 6 months than i know what to do with. i feel for people who need to work and want to work but suing because you weren't hired means one of two things: one, maybe you felt discriminated against...and you feeling that doesn't mean it is happening. two, you are frustrated, think you're better than you really are and feel a sense of entitlement. starbucks can't hire everyone who walks through the door. sorry...can't happen. give the managers who actually hire people here a break! i think most managers do their best to hire someone they deem as a good fit. regardless of age, sex, religion or sexual orientation. i interview people all the time and i have made a few bad decisions but they weren't based on age or anything like that. this woman is out to lunch...and i'd say it to her face if i had the chance. suing because no one hired you? oh well...spend some of the effort to sue on looking for a different job. it isn't YOUR right to work for starbucks. in fact, it is NOT your right to work anywhere. once again...the sense of her entitlement is disgusting...

[curious]

I work with a 70+ partner. She totally rocks the register and brewing coffee, but has to be supported with cup marking and all. Granted, she came from the service industry, but still, it is possible. Would I hire her again? Probably. Would I hire another like her. Probably not.

[snagger]

After reading the comments on this site anyone 50 or older would be foolish to ever stop at SBUX again.Let the courts decide the issue.Further,it would be interesting to see who was terminated at the SSC in the recent layoffs.I'll bet there was a higher percentage of older women!The good old boys look out for themselves and its far easier to manage a young inexperienced work force.