Starbucks customers, employees support barista they say was unjustly fired for theft

St. Paul, Minnesota Starbucks barista Azmera Mehrbatu -- known to her customers as "Aizze" -- was accused of theft but presented with no evidence, and was told to sign a promissory note saying she would pay Starbucks $1,200, or supervisors would call the police and have her arrested. On Saturday, three dozen baristas, union members and customers picketed her Starbucks store to protest the dismissal.|| Read "Firing lead to protest at St. Paul Starbucks" || "Best barista" fired in St. Paul" ||| JUMP TO THE SECOND PAGE OF COMMENTS.

Comments

[Fred Frappuccino]

From the article:

"Mehrbatu said she would sometimes record the sale of a full-priced drink as a refill and put the difference in an employee tip jar"

That's stealing. It's pretty black and white.

[brown dot]

She may not have known that was wrong, but ignorance does not mean innocence. She was increasing tips by improperly ringing a beverage. Sorry Aizze, that would be considered stealing. And please, do not buy into this racism thing. I'm sure if she was a white blonde blue eyed girl there wouldn't be this whole hub bub about her being wrongfully fired. There wouldn't be an article in the paper or protests outside of the store. Oh well. I wonder if she will get her job back to avoid anymore publicity.

[me myself and I]

If she did that for real she took money from the company for her and her co workers gain. This is considered stealing.
BUT, there are a lot of stores where this is common practice. I've witnessed it several times myself. And even though I wouldn't take part in such a scheme, I'm aware of it.
If it is in fact common practice in her store, then they can not fire just her for doing it. Then they would have to fire everyone who took part in it. You can not single one person out and punish her in place of everybody else. That would be immoral.
That is at least my opinion.

[darthsid]

That's true, although if she was as good a barista as the article mad out to be, firing her without prior notice would seem too harsh wouldn't it?

I've seen worse things happen in stores and way less severe disciplinary action.

[Melody]

One interesting aspect of the article is the coercive nature of confessions (often). She was told, "sign a confession to $1200 theft or we'll prosecute": People really can easily be coerced into signing confessions. Here, I can easily think that she thought, "oh my god, if they prosecute the theft charge will affect immigration (??) and that would be awful. I better sign it". She might've signed anything put in front of her. (I have no idea if she has immigration worries but that thought is an example of one of many reasons people just sign whatever is thrown in front of them - and on top of that, people sign things too fast anyways!)

I only say that because I've heard of lots of coercive techniques used to sign confessions, and it's not a good practice! If you cannot find some evidence to back up your claim ...

I think we need some more facts here. Neither of the 2 articles describe the circumstance of undercharging drinks. If she is ringing up a Java Chip Frappuccino as a coffee refill, well that might be "knowingly" (the criminal intent mens rea for theft in most states) undercharging a person enough that, YES, she's guilty of theft. But was this a situation of a coffee refill after camping out at a store for hours?

What worries me most (just generally speaking) is how so many people want to brand their neighbor, a person in the paper, anyone a "criminal" without every actually seeing the evidence. The consequences of a guilty conviction are permanent and serious, yet it is often the case that people just believe whatever allegations are tossed their way in the news (like you can trust news??) (Again I am writing generally speaking).

[STARBUCKS GOSSIP WEBMASTER]

Dumb move, BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL. You really think you can post as the Starbucks Gossip Webmaster and get away with it? Sorry. Banning time!

[Juan Valdez]

"They [supervisors] locked me in a back room for one hour, 36 minutes and kept saying, 'Sign and we won't call the police."

What room did they lock her in? The bathroom?

[Cruncher]

The bottom line is this: undercharging is wrong. It is stealing. Stealing from the company, and also stealing from her fellow partners.

Each store earns labor for every drink. You get more labor for drinks that take longer to make. Ringing in a refill steals labor that could have gone to the baristas...it also would have earned labor that could have made for a better customer experience.

And for the people that say "well, everyone else in the store was doing the same thing,"....SO WHAT? We're not talking about their job performance. In fact, maybe those talks are in the works, right now. What Azzie did has no bearing on the other partners behavior, and their behavior has nothing to do with what she chose to do.

Just like your mother always used to say, "If everybody jumped of a bridge, would do it, too?"

As for claims that she doesn't understand enough English to comprehend the charges against her...well, if her English is that limited, what was she doing in customer service, in the first place?

The people defending her aught to be ashamed of themselves.

[Former SoCal ASM]

Stealing is stealing. I agree with everyone above me. News outlets love to make these kinds of things into "oh my god, racism!"

[Nacho]

There's a big difference in the amount of English needed to serve customers and what it takes to read a bunch of legal jargon.

[Mary]

"Mehrbatu said she would sometimes record the sale of a full-priced drink as a refill and put the difference in an employee tip jar"

I do not see this quote in either of the articles...

[coffee in exile]

Oh for heaven's sake people, read the damn article before getting on your high horse. It says that while she was accused of that in the note she was forced to sign, both she and her coworkers deny that it took place. You have no idea if the note she was forced to sign was true, so please at least reserve your judgement instead of acting like you know what's up.

[Man]

Yeah...I can tell most of you didn't read the article...

Something similar happened at another company over a year ago, and in that case it was a case of the accused employee doing what was condoned by management for other employees. I'm sorry, but you can't discipline an employee for something that isn't allowed when other employees do the same thing. I think this woman was merely providing the Legendary Customer Service that we as baristas are supposed to provide!

[Melody]

Please remind me to pull out my peremptory challenges when I've got most of you in my jury panel. I have no idea why most people have great difficulty making a conscious decision to WAIT to make judgment until after all the evidence has been heard.

[StLouieDrip]

@Mary, it's on the second page of the first article/link. At the bottom of page 1 you have to click on "next page" to get page 2.

And I agree with coffee in exile. The only account of the "confession" is what Gallagher (DM) wrote in the document that Gallagher coerced Mehrbatu into signing. IOW, hearsay, not an actual confession, and definitely not proof of Mehrbatu's supposed guilt.

[Argentius]

Way to jump to conclusions, everybody.

If I'm going to jump, here's what I think happened. Seen it plenty of times, plenty of storess:

Loyal Customer purchases a drink that does not qualify for refill pricing. Barista decides to "surprise and delight" the customer, says, you know, it will be only 50 cents this time.

Customer is happy at the gesture, and either tips more than they would, or says, "you keep the rest!"

Now, clearly, corporobot can't account for every dollar this way. While Surprise and Delight is encouraged by managers that know what the F they are doing, the proper way to do it is to ring the item up and then cancel the charge (I think there even used to be a POS for comping a drink that was not "recovery," but recovery would work fine.)

If this employee had only okay command of English, and walked into a store with this type of culture, it would be easy to either get confused or carried away.

So, no, "Stealing is not stealing." There is a whole lot of grey in this one -- but Melody is right, to be convicted of theft, it generally must be proven that you MEANT to steal something.

Bullying her into promissory note, threatening prosecution, etc., offends me greatly, if that's what had happened.

If the police had been called, she may not have been charged, and, if she HAD, she'd have been entitled to legal representation, including an interpreter, to present her case appropriately.

[Sneaky]

I am so SHOCKED by so many fo you. I quote one very important legal principle you all should know -

"Ignorantia legis neminem excusat" Latin for "ignorance of the law does not excuse" or "ignorance of the law excuses no one". This is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because he or she was unaware of its content.

So she may not have done anything at all. Or she may have done it just once because others were as well.

But if she, or anyone else out there, did it JUST ONCE it's stealing.

Period!

Internal theft,at $19.5 billion, is the single biggest source of loss to retailers/QSR's last year.

I say next time everyone gets all worked up by executives high salaries, corporate jets, bad DM's, etc. etc. - think about how the theft in the stores (Baristas, Shifts ASM's and SM's) is the largest single factor to reduced company profits. Maybe that will get everyone to markout their drinks/spoilage, charge the correct prices and stop giving crap away to their friends.

[JC]

This barista worked at the store for two years and had no trouble whatsoever with the language until she was caught stealing.

[SPORK]

I for one am not a believer in the mantra 'stealing is stealing' and I do think that there is grey area in this story. As for those who are saying she's stealing from the partners, I'm not entirely sure that counts seeing as how she's putting it in the tip jar for their benefit.

I am definitley not saying that she's innocent, but I think Starbucks has a lot more theft problems than coffee refill money going into tips.

[Cruncher]

Just because she is putting money in the tip jar doesn't mean she isn't stealing hours from them...

Besides, if Starbucks didn't have enough proof to ensure this firing would stick if challenged, they wouldn't have taken action. Just because they didn't share that proof with the media doesn't mean it doesn't exist. After all, it isn't anybody else's business.

[Aaron]

I've been involved with this situation.

The previous manager condoned regulars occassionally being undercharged, much as described by Argentius. The new manager did not reverse the policy. It was a widespread practice at that store, as I know it is at many others.

Management and Partner and Asset Protection decided to try to go after somebody for this, and they chose Aizzie. It's a convenient choice for management, as she is not a native english speaker. Anyone who speaks a foreign language, and has ever had to use it in a high pressure situation in an adversarial setting (JC obviously hasn't faced this) knows that even if you are quite an expert at it, there is a world of difference between that and casual conversation. When confusion did arise, management made no effort to correct it. They did not use basic strategies like re-wording, to ensure that their subject of interrogation was fully aware of what was going on when she raised concerns.

She did not understand the full line of questioning, and management twisted her words into a confession of much more than she actually did. She did not put the difference of undercharges into the tip jar.

Then, they threatened to call the police on her. You have to remember 3 things: she was not even fully aware of what she was "confessing" to, she is a mother of 3, and she is from a region that has had some viscious, bloody conflicts occur there.

The first point has been covered. Secondly, many mothers, when faced with being arrested, would choose to do anything to not be arrested so they could go home to their children, and avoid being kept away from them for who knows how long. Thirdly, the police in many other countries are not like they are here. Hell, there are plenty of problems here, but in many countries, police are terribly corrupt and regularly use excessive force. To an Ethiopian, a run in with the authorities could easily mean a beating, or even rape.

Those of you arguing that "stealing is stealing" (though undercharging is not stealing), are unwilling to admit that justice is not blind. It is administered by people. People make mistakes. People intentionally do wrong (otherwise we wouldn't need a system of justice, would we?). Those dealing justice are no more likely to be flawless, objective individuals than those receiving it, especially when it is dealt by a private entity with no democratic accountability, such as a corporation.

[RatherNotSay]

I agree with Sneaky. Add in the refill policy too while you're at it! I mentioned this in another post and got told off by more than one person. Everytime a customer walks in the door and is charged for a refill when they didn't even buy the beverage in that store, is theft. Abusing the refill policy is stealing when we give free beverages to anyone who walks in with a cup, regardless of where they got it or how old it is. Internal theft is indeed a genuine concern and they wouldn't have fired her if they didn't have evidence.

[is it so hard to be civil]

I don't think so many baristas would protest if they didn't think she was being unfairly.

[StLouieDrip]

Aaron, thanks for your comments on this. I appreciate the perspective you bring to this. I had been wondering how it feels to be a minority female from another country, and what her previous experiences with authority had taught her, and what she really heard when the word "police" was used as a threat. You answered many of my questions. And I really don't understand those here who are so quick to throw out firm pronouncements of "GUILTY" based on so little info. Those news articles don't offer any firm evidence of concrete proof. Not even close.

Last time I was in sbux I ordered a tall drip with lots of room. The register guy voluntarily rang it up as a short. Was he also stealing? That has happened lots of times with different baristas. Are they all thieves? I've also gotten a few free refills along the way, just for being a favorite customer, and also a free pastry. Were they also jeopardizing their jobs?

Oh well, at least the publicity of this will likely get her some legal help that she wouldn't have gotten otherwise.

[Will]

Well, when we get our labor cut 3.5% so that we can fly managers to NO, waste money on stupid promotions like sugar free mochas, and spend millions on the salaries of useless DMs who spend more time harassing managers about their USD than actually being productive...

that might not excuse the stealing, but this company has bigger problems than Aizee.

[TMC]

From the article: "Gallagher wrote that Mehrbatu said she would sometimes record the sale of a full-priced drink as a refill and put the difference in an employee tip jar"

On the other hand: "She [Mehrbatu] readily admits that she refilled the cups of regulars, but that's common practice at this Starbucks and has been encouraged by management, co-workers said."

[me myself and I]

Without knowing all the facts I still think this sounds a lot like what people at Starbucks were told to do as customer service. At least back in the days, when Starbucks was still a customer focused and not cost cutting focused company.
I even once had a store manager who told his shifts to give away at least one free drink per shift, preferably to a new customer they connected with. Is this customer service? Or is it stealing? At my store we give away free pastries at night if someone buys more than one drink and we have a lot of leftovers that would be marked out anyway. Again, is it stealing or customer service?
If you follow my posts you know I'm pretty strict, when it comes down to stealing. But there are gray areas where it might be considered customer service.

After all, what do we have the JSY policy for? If it looks gray, we don't have to decide on the spot if it is more black or more white, we just say yes and turn it into white. At our own discretion.

Something's fishy here.

[Juan Valdez]

@melody

OBJECTION!

overruled

EXCEPTION!!

noted...thank you.

[coffee in exile]

@cruncher: that's really sweet that you think that people, especially at places like starbucks, are fired only with hardcore proof. you keep on keeping on with that one.

[Erik]

@Fred Frappuccino

YOU ARE A LIAR. At no point in either of these news stories are there the words "Mehrbatu said she would sometimes record the sale of a full-priced drink as a refill and put the difference in an employee tip jar."

What you do see, in the Star Tribune article is "as part of the note Mehrbatu signed, Gallagher wrote that Mehrbatu said she would sometimes record the sale of a full-priced drink as a refill and put the difference in an employee tip jar. Mehrbatu and her allies contend she was pressured into signing the note even though she didn't fully understand its contents."

At no point did Aizze intentionally undercharge customers in order to put the difference in the tip jar.

Why would you start the first post in this thread with a totally fabricated quote? Makes me wonder who you are. You must check StarbucksGossip.com pretty regularly to be the first poster. Do you work for Starbucks?

[Melody]

Juan Valdez, objections don't quite work like that during jury selection but whatever.

If you too would like to leap to conclusions that she must be guilty because a couple of newspaper articles say so, that's seems to be the popular bandwagon to jump on. It's awfully lonely over here in the nearly empty wagon that I and a few others sit in. Despite the stampede coming at me, I'm okay with having an unpopular opinion which in this case is, don't convict until we know more.

[BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL]

I haven't posted at all to this story.

[Marcus]

If undercharging is stealing, then what is giving free drinks? There's one partner who every once in a while--in front of all the other baristas--in a blue moon only, says don't worry about it, it's on the house today. I thought I had read on here something about surprise and delight.

[Munchkin]

If a barista purposely undercharges the customer so that he/she can put the difference in the tip jar, that is stealing. If a barista "surprises and delights" a customer WITHOUT ringing in the drink in the POS, that is considered stealing.

Giving away a free drink once in a while for a specific reason is not stealing as long as the drink is accounted for and as long as the drink is not given to an acquaintance (friend, relative, significant other, etc.) of the barista.

[Munchkin]

@Erik

You contradict yourself. You say that Fred Frappuccino "totally fabricated" a quote. However, in your very own post, the very same words you say are "totally fabricated" are contained within the "real" quote that you posted. The quote might be misrepresented, but it is not "totally fabricated."

[@usorthem3]

@melody i have always been an advocate of the don't say anything until I speak to an attorney belief, however most don't know when to shut up for their own good. There are those who think if you ask for representation that you are guilty or else you wouldn't need a lawyer, right? The judicial system affords you that right and the police/authorities are trying to find someone to blame/prosecute. If this was not true then why else would there be people found not guilty of crimes that they have spent decade in jail for being released daily in this country. Innocent until PROVEN guilty still applies in the United States so before you sign or say anything get a lawyer so your side of the events will be known. If any of this is incorrect please tell me, otherwise give me my Miranda rights and I will give you my name, DOB and address otherwise

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights?

[Burned Bean]

pretty clear cut pos manipulation and tip policy violations. that means you are automatically promoted to customer, even if you try to pull out the "ethiopian immagrant" card...

[Darleen]

Melody,
Always the voice of reason. I will gladly sit on your lonely side of the band wagon as I still believe you are Innocent until proven Guilty.

[(former) FLA SM]

If this case was so clear cut as some of you say it is, then there would have been no need for a coerced confession. If there was indisputable evidence of theft, then Starbucks could/would have simply fired this person, justly. There must be more to this story than meets the eye. It seems likely someone in the mix has an axe to grind. If the normal course of activity in the store involves a policy violation (i.e. free refills instead of charging or refill price for customers who have left the building), then everyone involved must be disciplined.
My theory (pure speculation) is that someone in that store didn't like Aizze for whatever reason and decided to get rid of her by setting up a situation where she could be "caught" violating a policy in front of a DM or LP person. Regardless, I'll bet this becomes such a PR fiasco for Starbucks that a happy ending will be provided for the press.

[Justice]

She was definitely targeted by babies at her store who were jealous of her legendary service. Who knows they also possibly could be racist and this needs to go to court.

[Anonymous]

To FLA SM,

That's exactly what I think it is. A set up to get rid of her and use her as a patsy. Corporate has their own internal investigation unit and I think that is considered obstruction of justice and cases like these should require real law enforcement involved.

Otherwise, Corporate screwed up and are being lied to by management to save their own hides. Whenever there is an immigrant involved in the workplace, there's always a chance for mis-communication because of language and cultural differences.

And I have'nt forgotten the missing laptops fiasco either from Corporate, if they think they're so clever to sweep it under the rug.

[Juan Valdez]

@melody

geez, I wasn't jumping on any bandwagon and I havent yet stated my opinion on this case. I was simply quoting one of the closing scenes in The Verdict where Paul Newman kicks James Mason's ass and gains redemption in the process.

I thought that movie was required viewing for all defense attornies, not because it breaks new legal ground but, because, it reminds us that the little guy wins every now and then.

[BariStar]

2 points:
1-If whatever she did was a practice condoned by management (e.g. undercharging a regular customer for a refill only as a sort of customer service promotion award), it isn't theft because she was told to do it by her superior. You can't steal money someone is giving to you.

2-If she was intentionally under ringing a transaction to keep the difference as a tip, it is definitely stealing. SOme states have specific statutes about exactly this--it is called a variety of things, often "larceny by scheme" or "larceny by device." If so, it can be proved pretty readily, even if the store does not have security cameras. I would hope that before they got her to cop to it, they already had enough evidence on hand. Getting the confession and restitution promise just makes it easier and cheaper to deal with a theft and allows the thief to avoid getting a criminal record (a felony by the amount stated). It does not mean that they did not already have enough evidence to prosecue.

[Burned Bean]

it's all about how you "spin" the record...

[BoldToday]

I'm with Melody and Darleen on this one. Innocent until proven guilty. None of us has all the facts of this situation, just some allegations (both for and against her) in a couple newspaper articles. I'm especially offended by Cruncher's remark, "The people defending her aught [sic] to be ashamed of themselves." Really? Were you there? Do you have both the knowledge and the impartiality to make a claim like that?

[Argentius]

I'm impressed by how many very skilled lawyers here know a lot more about the case than I do.

All right, all right, so that was sarcastic.

But Sneaky, and the rest of you "theft is theft, period" types, I would encourage you to pick up at the very least Wikipedia and look up "THEFT" and "LARCENY."

You'll see the word "intent" in every one of them.

IF the barista GENUINELY DID NOT KNOW that was she was doing was not authorized, then she WAS NOT "stealing" anything.

She was making a mistake.

Of course, I am no lawyer, and this is my interpretation -- but, if you've ever talked at length with a Loss Prevention employee at a retailer, you'll learn how imporant the "interviews" are after a shoplifter is caught. Much of the time, potential prosecution is based on getting the accused to admit to attempting to take the item.

If, for instance, you genuinely forget you have an item in the bottom of your cart, or your child places something there without your knowledge, you're not going to be convicted if the jury agrees.

[SMSanDiego]

i really can't fathom a store manager or a dm forcing someone to stay in a room and sign some document. seems a little "kgb" doesn't it? i've never, in my entire time with starbucks, seen anything like that. not even close and i've been in conversations with partners who HAVE stolen...hundreds of dollars...and there was NO "police interrogation tactic".

this is another story where all the pro-union people will jump on the "we need a union to protect people" bandwagon. in your minds (pro-unionists) every firing is racist or sexist or some other "ist" you want to pull out of your "no one needs to take responsibility for their actions" hat.
fire the manager of the store. fire the partner. clean house. it is stores/partners like this who ruin starbucks...despite the few protesters and horn honking. that store is promoting a culture of theft and everyone involved should be canned, regardless of race or sex or stupidity level.

[Aces of Eight]

Everyone is saying "theft is theft" and "ignorance of the law doesn't mean you are innocent or can get out of trouble etc." I have a little legal jargon to throw at YOU. Such as "innocent until proven guilty" and "confessions signed under duress are not valid confessions or proof of guilt."

I will NOT deny, that if she did what she was accused of and if she did what she signed that she did in a confession made under duress than of course it is theft and of course she should pay the price for what she did.

However, she has NOT been proven guilty in a court of law, and she still has the right to contest the money that she supposedly owes the company. The confession means nothing as it was signed under duress, and as such nothing in it means ANYTHING in a court of law, it would be thrown out by even the most half wit judge before the prosecution could even present it as evidence (correct me if I am wrong Melody, but I am pretty sure this is true).

Seriously, where do you guys get off? What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Of course if she did it she's guilty of theft, but she has NOT BEEN PROVEN GUILTY!

[your mom]

Why dont you use the darn recovery right now button!!!! XBR loves the refill button, especially when you hit void...then refill. Red flag. Red flag. Red flag.

[GRTL]

Melody,

I gladly join you on the innocent until proven side...I don't like the method if it's true (which totally wouldn't surprise me if it was)..the way it describes presented to this employee.

God I was told to give away a drink per shift by my 1st manager as an act of customer service. If you see someone having a rough day, tell them it's your treat today...do something nice.

Sbux has totally been taken over by corporate greed and is using the recession as the excuse to negatively impact it's customers and "partners". This is not the same company I signed on with and I know I am not alone to be ashamed on certain days to be working here still