Introduction of Banana Vivanno Smoothies at Starbucks leads to sexual harassment

A 29-year-old former Starbucks barista says in her lawsuit that young male co-workers put bananas between their crotches to resemble male genitalia; placed them in cracks of store walls, napkin dispensers and bathrooms as phallic symbols; and inscribed one with an offensive, suggestive remark directed toward her. The woman says managers took no action, and the situation worsened the more she complained. || Read "Sex-harass suit brewing at Starbucks"

Comments

[Another Barista]

Ya know, there are sooo many worse things than a bunch of immature guys playing with bananas. People need to lighten up. And, no, I am not a guy. I think it's ridiculous to sue, just smacks of a get-rich-quick mentality if you ask me. There are SO many stinking frivolous lawsuits in this country. Save your lawsuit for ACTUAL sexual harassment, lady.

[Another Barista too]

I admit that the Vivanno smoothies are a pain. I know, I hate making them. But seriously, sexual harassment over Vivannos? This made me laugh.

[coffeejunkie]

I think her lawsuit has more to do with her manager breaking confidentiality over her sexual assault than anything else. Still, the manager's non-action on the "sexual innuendos" should, from an HR perspective, be cause for disciplinary action.

[Donnie]

Yeah, frivolous or not sexual harassment is NOT A JOKE from an employer's perspective. Managers should never act in this manner, especially in this day of multi-million dollar payouts. From a business perspective, this manager is a MORON.

[cornfrost]

Someone in my store was fired for sexual harrassment. He was a disgusting guy and they needed to get rid of him. Customers complained about him and everybody tried to give their hours away so they wouldn't have to work with him.

He went around slapping female baristas in the backside. It got to the point where the female employees were on high alert all the time and would make sure they never had their backs to this guy. It was exhausting and disruptive. He was sent home as soon as he did it to me and was fired the following day. The manager later thanked me for giving him a reason to fire him.

I wish this girl well. It is simply horrible to have to work in a situation like that. Starbucks has a huge labor pool to draw from, and they don't need a reason to fire anybody. They could have fired all of those guys immediately and replaced them with people who behaved professionally in the workplace. My store, fortunately, was very rigid in not tolerating such behavior when it happened, but I am sure not all stores are. I applaud this girl for taking legal action under these circumstances.

[Nicole]

There is a sense of confidentiality I feel was not considered for the Barista... if the harassment only got worse the more she complained to her manager, then it is obvious that the concern did not stay between the barista and manager. Also, an employee has a right to feel comfortable in the work environment, and whether or not the harassment was meant to harass, if the barista was uncomfortable, it should have been taken care of.

[Wanderley]

In defense of bananas everywhere, a correction to the headline is in order: barista blames jerk coworkers (not bananas) in her lawsuit.

And if it's all true, she was right to complain and more than entitled to sue now. Not that our opinion matters in that respect, now that a judge will look into it...

[™]

Awesome I'm putting one between my legs today, top of the morning or banana to you!

We have one person who likes to squeeze nipples, yummy!

[Pat Nerr]

seems like the folks that dismiss her being uncomfortable with a sexually suggestive work environment might need some sort of reality check to what constitutes sexual harassment in the workplace... what they did was against Starbucks policy and would they have done it while Uncle Howie was around... if the answer is "no" then probabaly not a good thing to do it to others...

time to hire some adults to work at Starbucks...

[Lisa]

For those of you who have the gall to say that this woman is not entitled to sue and that her lawsuit is "frivolous," the article stated that she had been sexually assaulted not long ago, for which she had to be driven to the hospital. Her confidentiality was not maintained despite her request, and now she has to deal with immature sexual innuendo, which to most anyone who has been sexually assaulted is going to appear threatening and make them feel intensely uncomfortable. This person has every right to sue.

[Will]

LMAO!

GTF over it. What a bunch of losers.

"Hey, he's holding a banana between his legs...I bet I can make a million bucks!"

Jesus. If I'd been sued for every horrible thing I've done with white mocha syrup...

[Pat Nerr]

Will = Starbucks liability... They should make him manager...

[Will]

that's the spirit, pat!

I'm not saying Starbucks shouldn't protect itself, or its managers shouldn't act competently, but how about hiring people other than litigious sexual assault victims? Oh wait, that's discrimination.

WOMP WOMP

[Beantown Bearista]

WTF!!!
Some people really need to lighten the hell up...ITS A BANANA!! We make phallic jokes all the time with them in our store, it's no big deal. Grow a sense of humor!

[Aces of Eight]

Did they ever touch her? Did they ever explicitly make sexual suggestions? I'm not jumping to any conclusion until we know more...

Also, as for the confidentiality thing, if a lot of the jokes are directed at her, because she is the one who takes the pranks most to heart (and this is usually how pranksters chose their victim, it isn't really mean spirited, the jokes are just meant to get a reaction) then if the manager talks to them, even if he doesn't mention their name... it's pretty likely they are going to guess she was the one who told... it's really not that hard to figure out.

An SM can only do so much in some situations to keep things confidential, he can say nothing about identity, but if they guess right and up the harassment, how can he prove it?

[Jo Ann]

Ok, I'm confused. I've read the news article three times: When was she assaulted? There are two stories here:

1) She was harassed at work after the introduction of bananas. She complained, and nothing was done.

2) She was allegedly assaulted, which resulted in a ride to a hospital. The manager told her coworkers about the assault.

It doesn't seem as if she is claiming "verbal assault" from the Sbux employees. It reads as if it was a separate incident. I'm -assuming- that during her complaints to her manager that she mentioned the outside assault.

This seems as if a woman was assaulted (allegedly) by someone else, and was then especially sensitive to the harassment at work.

I don't condone any harassment in the work place, but I can't be held accountable for people's out of work lives. If she told her manager a private matter I'm not sure how liable the manager or the store is if it was divulged. What if I told you I was cheating on my husband? Can I sue Starbucks if you repeat what I've admitted??

Anyone have more facts on this??

[Jo Ann]

Ok, I'm on four times now. I see that the manager was the one who drove her after the "assault." But what was the f'in assault?

"alleges young male co-workers put bananas between their crotches to resemble male genitalia; placed them in cracks of store walls, napkin dispensers and bathrooms as phallic symbols; and inscribed one with an offensive, suggestive remark directed toward her."

None of the above constitutes assault. The suggestive remark "directed toward her" better have been her full, legal name, otherwise she is just 'assuming' that the comment was directed to her.

I'm still crying foul.

[Will]

To be fair, she said the assault took place in Spring 08, not at Starbucks.

The "assault" and the "harassment" are two different things.

[Another Barista]

We live in such a disgustingly politically correct world that anyone and everyone is in danger of being sued. It's ridiculous, WAY over the top and beyond what's necessary.

[Pat Nerr]

here's a shout out to all you Clarence Thomas' out there... this lawsuit is fer you.

[Munchkin]

Come on people. You need to read the policy manual you received on the first day of work. Anything that is sexually suggestive constitutes sexual harassment and is, therefore, a punishable offense. If you are like Beantown Barista and make phallic jokes "all the time" you're just itching to be terminated. Good luck trying to get hired somewhere else when you were terminated for sexual harassment!

[Aces of Eight]

Munchkin: That's just for liability reasons, if you feel harassed because someone made a joke about a frigging banana you have major problems, and are probably not fit to be working with people. You need to be able to take jokes and teasing, seriously.

Also, their are plenty of banana jokes at my store that are sexually suggestive and sometimes explicit, guess who makes those jokes? The FEMALE partners, hahaha.

I'm sorry but this whole thing is just stupid.

[Munchkin]

On another note, what's with towns named Everett and sex-related crimes. Check out this .

[cornfrost]

It is not just in the policy manual. It is the law.

For all those who think that making phallic jokes in the workplace shows you have a delightful sense of humor that brings joy to all who are lucky enough to be within earshot, please grow up. I understand that humor is very individual, and some people find things funny while others do not, so if your personality is such that you are able to see a lighthearted moment in jokes that others find threatening and harrassing, that is your prerogative. I happen to find such behavior sickening. Furthermore, it is illegal.

[green_cup]

You can count on Starbucks to keep it classy!

[DARKROAST]

Sorry having browser problems....the saddest part of this story is that the folks she looked to for support did nothing to prevent things from going this far.

[DARKROAST]

Ok hope this works....
So, from what I can ascertain from this vaguely-written article, this woman was assaulted in 2008 (but where? At work? On her way there or back home? By whom?). The shiftie who drove her to the hospital violated her privacy and confidentiality by reporting the incident to her co-workers. On that note, waaay to go shift-lead-with-absolutely-NO-common-sense. As if being traumatized by a sexual assault wasn't humiliating enough! What a friggin' disrespectful moron.
Now, she's being taunted and teased by partners who are fully aware of that incident. See Sbux, that is EXACTLY why you should hire an mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging hormonally-charged teenaged cretins and trisomic SM's to run your stores! Adding insult to injury, she repeatedly brought her grievance to the chain of command to no avail. The situation worsened and no one thought to put a stop to it--such a huge liability for a company, why was this swept under the rug so easily? Can we see now why she's turned to litigation?
If she was taunted and harassed in response to her sexual assault, then somebody's going to pay. The immature frat boys posting nonsense like "grow up" and "everyone make jokes like this at work"---you all need to read a book and/find a hobby. There are so many different angles of humour you CAN use at work--that doesn't have to involve scatophilia or risque material. Quite truly, YOU need to finish puberty and understand that those laws are in place for a reason. It's inappropriate. Period. Go jerk off in front of internet porn at home (not in the lobby.) if you cannot contain yourself.

[BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL]

Beantown Barista,
Some people are still Puritans and have never had a sexual reference in their life. Today I was waiting to use the bathroom, turns out the guy was doing coke off the sink. I told my shift, she said, and he didn't think to share with me. Apparently Starbucks partners do drugs in the bathroom too. Who would've thought?

[BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL]

I am sure this woman felt violated when she had to use a SHARPIE too, because markers are just so PHALLIC. Or she can't mount the Bunker Hill Monument. People think its "phallic" because they project their own sexual frustration. Its known as an Electra complex in her case. Maybe she should try something new that starts with a "V" and I don't mean VIA.

[Siren's Eye]

It's women like this that give sexual assult victims a bad name. Crying wolf because some teenage boys were acting like SUPRISE teenagers is insane. If she was qualified to do anything besides an entry level job, this wouldn't be happening. But since her choices are suing or McDonald's, she's going to sue. Those boys probably weren't directing it to her at first but since she reacted like some right wing born again, they starting doing it more when she was around just to get a rise out of her. Didn't she learn anything about behavior in Kindergarden? If you don't want to be picked on, don't react. Just becauses she has no sense of humor and thinks the world revolves around her, Starbucks has to be sued to prove her point. If she was REALLY harrassed by these boys, then all she would want is for them to get fired so no one else at that *$ would be treated the same way and to possible file charges against them. Instead, she using an off color remark that probably wasn't even directed towards her as her "get out of work free card". And no, I'm not a man.

[Richard]

A comment from the article...

"More women than men buy this fluffy coffee anyway. They use the store as a place to meet girlfriends. Gay men to meet gay friends. If you really want to help this woman, women should boycott Starbucks starting today. It's as easy as that. McDonald's has the best coffee anyway and it's America grown!"

[Will]

"The immature frat boys posting nonsense like "grow up" and "everyone make jokes like this at work"---you all need to read a book and/find a hobby."

The people whining about harmless jokes probably need a hobby more than them.

mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging hormonally-charged teenaged cretins and trisomic SM's to run your stores!

Wow. Name calling using SAT words. We get it, you're SOO mature. Now go back to your MILF BDSM porn at the office (not the front desk).

[BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL]

I bet these boys were gay boys and they were playing with their "bananas" behind the dumpster when they did trash runs.

[BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL]

As one of my friends put it to me:

"Not having VIA the morning after, is like not having enough lube the night before. ROUGH."

[DARKROAST]

Hey Boston SB Reb, I thought you got the boot from this site....oh wells, welcome back.
Anyhoo, as for her "harassment issue", I want to know how that correlates to her previous assault incident--somebody DO tell!
Oh dear Will, you know as well as I do that Sbux will hire any creature with a pulse, and bratty teens and pervs can find a haven here with the Siren due to the lax pre-employment screening.
It's not that I can't tolerate a risque joke (believe me, I've made my share and probably some else's too), it's more of an issue of composure and professionalism. There's a time and place for that kind of "stuff", and work is not one of them. Once again, that's why the laws are there in the first place. Perhaps it wouldn't be so bad if they didn't keep up on it....
"The people whining about harmless jokes are probably the ones who need a hobby more than them."
Isn't "Be Considerate" a Green Apron Behavior? If you KNEW somebody was assaulted (or even if you didnt , it's still in poor taste), why would you tease them about it?!
By the way---BDSM?! Really? Bring it on, Mama's Boy!

[BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL]

Won't somebody think of the children?

[lo]

"Wow. Name calling using SAT words. We get it, you're SOO mature. Now go back to your MILF BDSM porn at the office (not the front desk)."

oh will, you're just mad you have no idea what he/she is saying.

[O, Valencia!]

Unfortunately, sexual harrassment is a lowest common denominator concept. The person that is the most sensitive sets the bar for what is acceptable and not acceptable for the rest of the crew. Yeah, sometimes it's not fair. At my store we get away with much worse, but the humor doesn't affect or offend people. At her store, she feels offended by any sort of phallic gesture.

I'm not trying to be the party pooper here at all -- I'm a huge fan of shock humor, sexual humor, all those awful things you find on the internet, etc. But if you think about it, everyone is sensitive to something, whether it's sexual jokes, or body image, or certain comments. You wouldn't go around making snide, mean comments about a barista's exterior appearance by saying they're ugly or fat, would you? Then why would you go around making phallic gestures to someone who had been a victim of sexual assault? And why would a manager turn a blind eye to it?

At the end of the day, Starbucks is a business and some variant of a professional environment. Not taking this seriously sets a bad example and precedent on the manager's and company's part.

[ChicaBarista]

The point is not that they made sexual jokes. The point is that they DIDN'T STOP when she told them to quit, they got worse and began directing it more towards her. Regardless of the sexual aspect, thats harassment in general. I'm just about as perverted as they come (and I'm female), but I respect people enough to leave it elsewhere if its not appreciated.

[Anonymous]

So, this is actually my store old store. And surprise, surprise: this woman is a disgusting human being, as none of these allegations are true. The "male-dominated" store she describes had two female managers the entire time she worked there. The story about "bananas between the legs" and "in the cracks of walls" is untrue.

The actual story, which is so ridiculous its hard to believe someone would sue over it, is that two employees put bananas in condiment bar napkin dispensers, with one saying 'napkin', and the other saying 'owned by (name of person)'. A practical joke, seen apparently as an opportunity, has now apparently become a lawsuit. If she doesn't mind spilling her story to the Herald, here are some other facts that I'm sure she won't mind getting out:

1) According to current partners, she returns to the store on a regular basis, 2-to-4 times a week. Apparently she wasn't too emotionally damaged.
2) She also turned down the $10,000 settlement offer Starbucks gave her, and is now suing for $100,000.
3) Because all of these allegations are false, she has no physical evidence, no pictures, videos, not even a picture of the bananas themselves. And because SHE is suing Starbucks, a court of law, with absolutely no proof, has to PROVE starbucks is guilty.
4) If you had the displeasure to work with this woman, you were probably privy to hearing sexually oriented jokes, coming FROM her, not directed TO her. She, if anyone, made her co-workers uncomfortable with her open sexual comments.

This disgusting woman is getting nothing aside from a fat bill from her lawyer.

[Formerly! ;)]

Does anyone know where this pic to the thread came from?? I love it ! we printed it out and hung it by the Vivanno bananas today, my SM pissed themselves... Good Times, thanks SG :)

[cornfrost]

Wow, anonymous, you are an angry young man indeed.

Ah, the "practical joke." That's what they all say. Just because you term it a "practical joke," that doesn't mean it isn't illegal.

What sort of moron puts a banana in a napkin dispenser anyway? What an idiotic thing to do.

IF it is true that Starbucks offered $10,000 to muzzle this girl (and it might not be true but you say it is), that is a huge admission of guilt by Starbucks. Starbucks has a whole department of high-salaried lawyers. An offer of $10,000 would have to go to the highest corporate levels....and there is no way they would offer that much to a former barista unless they were absolutely certain they were exposing themselves to huge legal risk otherwise.

And guess what? She didn't "spill" her story to the Herald. The newspaper took it from documents filed in court. Typically, this type of lawyer charges on a contingency basis, so the lawyer will not take the case unless he believes he can win.

[Aces of Eight]

I think it's funny how you are trying to disavow everything that anonymous said, when clearly he has an inside track and what he said makes a lot of sense.

If what he said is true, this woman no proof, and in fact didn't really have anything done to her, and was in fact the biggest offender when it comes to sexually explicit jokes, and clearly wasn't damaged very much.

Sbux has VERY good lawyers, and she will lose unless she has a LOT of proof.

And as for why Sbux offered her money? Simple, they didn't want to waste lawyer fees and they didn't want her to go spewing her false story everywhere, she got greedy and now she will get nothing instead.

Besides, tell me what is gained from this lawsuit? Is she trying to get the "guilty" parties fired? No, she just wants money, for what? Pain and suffering because someone put a banana in a napkin dispenser? This is just plain ridiculous. With this new evidence from anonymous, I say this woman should get nothing.

And if it is true the managers were mostly female, this whole thing is even stupider.

Look, actual sexual harassment is wrong, but it sounds like this woman made sexually explicit jokes herself, clearly isn't really traumatized and just wants money. That is the first impression when someone sues for "pain and suffering" a bunch of bull to get money.

No, this is of course assuming that their is a lot of truth in what anonymous said. I only posted as if what he said was true, because you posted as if it was true, but tried to make it sound inconsequential.

My point is that if what anonymous said is indeed the truth, or close to it, that these claims by this woman are ludicrous. And why you would still defend her IF (IF) what anon said is true, is beyond me...

[Will]

Cornfrost -- exactly which law school did you go to? I think you are owed a refund on tuition...

Offering 10k isn't an admission of guilt by any means. You really think that their high powered corporate attorneys are just sitting around in their shorts watching McGuyver reruns with nothing better to do? Frivolous or not, a lawsuit will cost MUCH, MUCH more than 10k. a 10k offer is purely an economic move, not "an admission of guilt."

i'm not sure how putting a banana in a napkin dispenser makes you a moron. It certainly isn't a genius move, but come on, overreact much?

Get off this website with your idiotic posts, please.

[Bearded Barista]

Can we change that picture on the topic, I hate seeing that picture of banana wang when I log into StarbucksGossip...

[green_cup]

This disgusting woman is getting nothing aside from a fat bill from her lawyer.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2009 at 09:08 PM

Why would Starbucks offer a settlement if they thought they'd win hardcore in court against her? Sure, it's probably cheaper to give up 10k rather than pay some lawyers, but she will see some settlement/ ruling in her favor, even if it's the original 10k offer.

Regardless of her actions, what allegedly occurred isn't okay by any standard, so she has a right to complain. She may be hypcritical to do so, if she commits the same actions to her co-workers, but that isn't a case as to why she shouldn't have a right to complain.

Further, if she does indeed do the same thing (sexual jokes, etc) than Starbucks needs to prove those allegations. It's a he-said, she-said thing here. Starbucks is in just as a precarious situation unless they've kept write-ups, etc on this employee.

[Formerly]

Wow this case will definitely be settled out of court and for a substantial chunk of $$ but the Supervisor and Store Manager knew this was going on and did absolutely nothing...SIt those two in a conference room and tell them "YOU'RE FIRED"!

Bananas just waisted investors a chunk of change (Oh my god, hilarious!)

Top of the Banana to you ;)

[CanuckBarista]

We don't get paid enough to do this job and not try to have fun at the same time. However, if someone is bothered by it, even if it seems innocent, then we have to stop. Sexual harassment is one of those strange things, in that it only has to be perceived as harassment by the "victim", even if it seems completely harmless with no sexual overtones to the person committing the act.

It sounds like this woman may be taking things a bit too far, but it should be a reminder to take someone seriously if they ask you to stop doing something.

(I made a comment yesterday about how one particular banana was obscene. It was huge!)

[Me]

To the person that wrote that we should buy Mcdonalds because the coffee is american grown- can you tell me where in America they get there coffee? Mcdonalds actually says in their commercials that they get there coffee from Latin America. No different from Starbucks.

[Aces of Eight]

The problem is someone heard Latin America and automatically assumed the United States. Many "American's" are ignorant, they think that because they are called Americans for short (since they are from the United States of America) that that automatically makes anything from any of the American continents a homegrown product of the USA.

Actually, from what I have heard much of McDonald's coffee is bought from Seattle's Best, which is owned by Starbucks. I am pretty sure it was iced coffee, not sure if it was much else. If this is true, then when McDonald's sells coffee Starbucks is making a profit, right?