Teenaged Starbucks barista tells "20/20" TV show about "sex demands" at work

The woman, now 19, gets her story aired on ABC's "20/20" tonight (Friday, Jan. 22). What's reported here has so many credibility problems that I don't know where to start. Feel free to pick it apart. || (ABCNews.com) || Jump to the second page of comments.

Comments

[don'tjumptoconclusions]

Many times companies have their hands tied.
It's a case of he said she said.
Had a little sister of mine deal with some blatant sexual harassment, which she complained about (restaurant) and they could do nothing. Zilch. Zero. She had to somehow prove it before they could take legal action.

[Reason Is a Gift - Use It]

1. There was a crime committed and someone went to jail. Right? Isn't that how it's supposed to work?

2. This happens ALL THE TIME in fast food industry with teens and "adults". It's not right. It's a crime. Did I mention he was convicted and served time for this?

3. Does he still work for Starbucks? Was he fired? Did I mention he was convicted of a crime served a sentence for that crime?

4. Quit watching sensational tv shows. No one seems too upset that this was the same interviewer/"reporter" that bowed down to Shell oil and turned his back on Nigeria. I guess that story wasn't sensational enough. Actually, Shell more than likely threatened ABC and they pulled the spot.

5. Never, ever, ever show your stupidity by judging a situation from sound bites from a sensational tv show. You people heard about 1% of the actual case. Making judgements based on that really displays the sad state of our information age, not to mention your own intelligence quotient.

6. Did I mention someone committed a crime and was convicted and served time for that crime?

[Munchkin]

It sounds as though 20/20 was having a slow news day. They couldn't wait to jump at the chance for to put Starbucks in the spotlight because of Starbucks' name recognition. Honestly, if the story was only about McDonald's and Taco Bell, would this receive any recognition? I, personally, don't think so.

Also, nobody has pointed out that this girl ASKED the guy for sex on a number of occasions. Knowing that fact, why is this even a news story?!

[BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL]

Because she's a 16 year old girl and he was the supervisor. It's like saying niggers enjoyed being in slavery.

[TheLip]

I watched this on TV, starbucks is disgusting. They had their lawyers paint this girl as a slut and take no responsibility for proving a safe work place. Starbucks had their human resource VP on and after listening to her I understand why starbucks has this problem, her view was that the girl had sex before so she was in a sense "asking for it". I WILL NEVER BUY STARBUCKS AGAIN.
Come people boycott them they are using us.

Blog and tweet about this, people should know what kind of people run starbucks.

[BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL]

I can't believe a woman would even say that about another woman. I find it so disturbing myself and it takes a lot to even disturb me. Maybe @Melody can provide some legal advice concerning this. I mean we have to remember who is the minor and who the adult is in the situation and who's responsibility it is to provide correct bounds in such situations.

[ex barista]

I work for a judge, and a couple of us clerks were talking about the case today, so we pulled up some of the docs in the case. After reading them, I think the article is pretty incomplete.

According to Sbux and Horton, it was a relationship and it lasted several months. The managers got suspicious about how much she was hanging out with Horton, and asked if anything was going on, but she lied and said no. Then, mom found out and went to the manager. This time, the girl admitted it, but Horton denied it. Without more, they couldn't fire him but they transferred her so they would not be in the same store. She kept seeing him secretly until the parents found out a few months later and sent her to a place in Utah. One of the things that jumped out at me is that she was asked if she was raped, but said no, it was "friends with benefits." Sbux also quoted from letters she wrote where she said she used sex to get drugs and alcohol, and manipulated Horton to have sex even when he didn't want to. That doesn't sound like she was forced against her will.

Her story is that he kept asking her out so she finally went out with him and slept with him because she was afraid for her job, but she never said he threatened her or did anything specific. I'm not sure why she was afraid since he was only a shift, but even if she was, why didn't she jump at the chance to report him to the manager when first asked?

I don't know what else Sbux can do in that case. Do you fire the guy on her say so after she denied? He might have a lawsuit if that happened.

I was interested in the judge's explanation of consent. He cited some case that says "statutory rape" doesn't exist in California. Its illegal for an adult to have sex with a minor, but it's not rape. A minor can still consent to the sex, but that consent is irrelevant to whether it's a crime. For sexual harassment, consent is relevant because the girl has to show the sex was unwanted. The case is going to trial because the court said only a jury can decide if she was coerced into having sex.

There also are some things about her sexual history that the article didn't say. Sbux got a court order allowing them to get information about her sexual history before they got it. The judge said it was relevant to her damages claim. She's asking for millions in emotional distress, but she told her doctors she's a "sex addict" and had sex with a bunch of other adult men before and at the same time as Horton. The papers filed by Horton are pretty funny because I guess they had to redact the names of the other guys she had sex with, so in place of their names is a black tag that says "Adult M" with a number. I think I saw up to "Adult M 11." I think six or seven were before Horton, and the rest were at the same time. I think a couple were over 20. She also was getting treated for drugs and alcohol before working for Sbux and had a bunch of other mental issues.

I can understand now why they're allowing sexual history evidence. If Sbux is liable, the jury has to decide the amount Sbux has to pay. If Horton was just one of a bunch of guys she had sex with, how much of her damages are from him or the other guys? She can't just say all of her problems were due to him without being challenged on that.

For anyone who wants to read about it, the docs are on PACER. The case is Doe v. Starbucks, Case No. SACV08-0582 in the Central District of California.

[Tomas Emerson]

The issue is not teens for hire. It is rape by code of authority. Starbucks is being sued because they failed to act correctly. They failed to report the incident to the OC sheriff, and didn't even fire the manager, rather transfer Kati. Tim followed her, and Kati's new boss was never informed of the problem. This is all documented. I have seen this situation at my nwork about 25 years ago. Supervisor knocked up an hourly, managment failed to take care of the problem. Company paid out 6 figures and lost. I have boycotted Starbucks, and sent them an email :
press@starbucks.com.
Sadly Starbucks has a smear campaign, and the V.P. of H/R went on tv and said that Kati's parents are to blame. What a bitch!

[Miveh]

I think some of you folks saw a different telecast than I did, because you all have WAY more information than I saw on 20/20. I definitely don't know what's really going on, but I want to state that until the supervisor was found guilty, it was only an allegation....therefore starbucks couldn't take action against him. Now, if sbux hires him back.......that's a WHOLE different story. And once this became a criminal investigation, why would starbucks NEED to dig? Furthermore, the sex acts DID NOT occur on sbux property, so was this girl going to his house? Its horrible that a person can victimize another.....for sure.......but in this case its as if she's PLAYING a victim more than being one......which does plenty of damage to any unfortunate future victim of sexual harrassment.

[ex barista]

@Tomas Emerson:

Didn't you read what I wrote? The girl denied anything was going on when Sbux first investigated and only admitted it when her mom came to Sbux. Before the girl admitted things, there was no reason to cal the cops and after she did admitted things, her parents knew and were perfectly capable of calling them. When and on what evidence was Sbux supposed to fire the guy? As soon as she complained, without proof, and after telling Sbux nothing was going on? What if she was lying?

I knew a girl in high school who got pregnant by her boyfriend. When her parents found out, they freaked out so she claimed she was raped by another guy. The manager may have thought Kati was pointing the blame at Horton, because she could claim she was a victim if the guy she was with was older.

What's the big deal about not telling the new manager? She was transfered so she wasn't working with Horton any more. If he showed up, she just complains again. He know longer has any power over her. BTW, according to the papers, she said he only came to her new store once, and he said it was because she asked him to give her a ride.

[treflgar]

@ex barista:
nice job. too many folks way too quick to assume that everything anyone could need to know about the situation is in that 20/20 piece.

[no clear answer]

she could have made a report to corporate herself...we are all given the the Partner Center number and it's posted in the store. She didn't even have to wait for her manager to take action. My concern is with the HR woman blaming this monor for her actions, the reson it i illegal to have sex with a monor in part is because they are too young to make responsible decions on their own!

[J. Fraess]

Starbucks DID know about what was going on between their employees, when it was brought to their attention they transferred the girl to another store, and took no disciplinary action against the manager, in fact leaving him in his position as Manager. McDonald's on the other hand when informed about a worker their that was sexually coming on to a co-worker immediately fired that employee. What is sad is that Starbucks uses their employee policy as an advertising slogan. It was one of the reasons I liked Starbucks, because I believed they treated their employee's well, were fair with them and protected them. Starbucks took no action in this and that was their mistake. If you are going to make a policy of protecting your employee's, Starbucks, have the courage to stand behind it! Now you are defaming this young lady even more in court..how dare you, this is not about her past...this is about the fact that you did not uphold your employee policy of protecting employee's, of it being a safe environment. That young man broke the law in California, she was a minor..and Starbucks allowed him to retain his position as Manager. I boycott Starbucks!

[treflgar]

you seem to have read only what you felt like there. he wasn't a manager. scan up the comments a ways and you will find what was brought to the attention of management was unsubstantiated, because of her (she denied a relationship when asked). the ride is a lot smoother if you get the facts before you climb up on your high horse.

[treflgar]

as for defaming her, central to her case is that her mother and lawyer(s) are trying to paint her as some average, wholesome, innocent, defenseless teenager who was left to fend for herself in a hostile work environment with a sexual predator. what they were trying to keep the company who they are suing from revealing is that she evidently has a bit of an addiction problem when it comes to sex, and the only thing that really seems to stand out about this particular incidence of it is the size of the wallet of one of the parties involved (sbux).

[Austin Bearista]

I'd like any baristas reading this to let me know how you feel about your shift supervisors. Kati Moore, a barista from CA, said of her shift supervisor "...I felt like he had complete control over my job..."
Am I missing something here? In every district I've worked in, the shift is just the one who holds the keys and counts the money when the manager is away. They don't hire anyone, they don't fire anyone, they don't interview perspective employees, they don't write the weekly schedules, they don't go on phone conferences; those are things a person with "complete control" over your job would do. Most importantly, there are more than one shift supervisor per store. How could a barista feel like a shift supervisor had complete control over her job when she works with and for other employees at the same level of management?
Please let me know if I'm missing something and this guy was actually the Assistant Manager.

[ICU]

That's a good point, Austin. Saying that you feared for your job from mean ol shift is pretty much like saying that you felt that a fellow barista had total control over you. I honestly hope Sbux fights this tooth and nail, it's so sickeningly obvious that this girl is just trying to get paid, from the stupid accusations to those lame fake tears that she started crying right at the beginning of her 20/20 interview. Too bad it looks like certain fools are already falling for her media bait, HLS.

[J. Fraess]

It is Starbucks responsiblity to investigate information that was brought to their attention. They should have at the mininum suspended him and investigated..couldn't have been that hard considering other people knew what was going on. Given the seriousness of the accusation that this man committed a crime, deserves Starbucks looking at the allegations. I maintain Starbucks advertises their "great" employee policy, then stand up and back it up. They failed in this case and how many others that havent' been brought to the public's attention.

[javagirl666]

I think she hooked up with him and her mom found out..I know there are victims out there..but I was a 16 yr old once and I wouldve said almost anything to save my ass.

[treflgar]

i really would like to understand exactly what it is people think the company should do to investigate after asking the "victim" if something was going on and having the "victim" refuse to admit to being a victim. should the manager be trained in deciphering subtle winks and nods? if you ask the person if something is going on and they tell you there isn't, there is not a lot more you can do unless there are other issues. doesn't sound like there were any issues in the workplace for anyone to observe other than the two of them spending a lot of time together, which is what she was asked about and said there was nothing going on. someone has to pay tho right?

[ex barista]

@J Fraess:

Do you know Sbux didn't investigate? From what I read, they investigated twice. They investigated when the manager had seen them together a lot and asked if anything was going on, ut both of them denied it. Sbux investigated again when the mother complained, but all they had was her word against his, and she had already lied to Sbux once. I'm not sure if they suspended him while they investigated, but they did make sure that they never worked together after the mother complained. If they were not in the store at the same time, he couldn't have continued to harass her at work, so it seems like it accomplishes the same thing as suspending him.

Oh, and I can't believe I forgot to say this earlier, when she told Sbux she was seeing the guy after the mom complained, SHE ASKED SBUX NOT TO FIRE HIM.

[J. Fraess]

No one is saying the young lady wasn't consenting to the sex, however she is a minor and did not have the right to consent, the 24 year old assistant manager (8 years her senior) had the onus of proper behaviour. Not only was he her superior, he is 24 years old..he committed a crime, he was charged and sentenced. Starbucks could not have been made more aware than having a parent go to them with these allegations. Of course both of these parties are going to deny, their jobs are up in the air. Neither of these two young people had good sense. Starbucks had the onus on them to make sure this was not happening with her and even with other employees he may have gone after. Transferring her to another store was not the answer, he committed the crime, not her. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, I guess we'll see how the case comes out.

[TiffanyT]

Okay here is my 2cents:
1- She was 16, at 16 the thought of an older man paying any sort of attention is wonderful to the 16 year old. Who was the adult in the situation.
2- Starbucks should have disciplined the manager. He is the authority figure to the teenagers, why would they blame the 16 y/o?
3- At what point does a Major corporation have an HR VP sit and say, well it is my job to raise my children with morals, therefore it is her parents fault. Really is that the best you could come up with???
4- Is Starbucks in the wrong- my opinion is yes. Why malign the teenager? Why did they wait until the Manager went to jail? Really you have a 24 y/o manager of your establishemt who sits outside and has sex with a minor? Yeah I agree, lets justify this one..
5- Teenagers do stupid things- My parents raised me to know pre-marital sex was wrong, you don't lie, steal or hurt others. But I did, I pushed the lines they had in the sand. Does that make it okay for an adult to have sex with me? If that is the case, then are you saying child abuse is the fault of the child's parents because they just wouldn't do those things if they had been taught it was wrong to be hit?
6- Teenagers need jobs, we need to be aware they are easy prey, and vulnerable, they need protected.

Noone will ever know all the facts in this case, but at the end of the day, He was the adult representing your company, having inappropriate relations with the teenager/child you hired. You are wrong, step up be accountable, and force any manager caught in any behavior like this to pay serious consequences.

[Wake up America]

It amazes me how people can be soooo manipulated by the media! Wake up people! This article is completely one sided. Girl gets busted by mom. Girl blames Starbucks. Mom is in denial. Mom blames Sbux. Girl becomes millionare. I know this store. I knew the SM. She would not let that happen. It is not set up that way. 50,000 plus a week. Several people on shift would not let that happen.

[ex barista]

So for everybody who says Sbux should have fired the guy, have you considered that the employer had to consider that she might have been lying? Are you saying that any time a teen worker claims they were harassed by an adult, the company must fire the adult to avoid being sued? Isn't it fair for the company to want some proof other than the teen's word?

[Cindy]

Sbux handled this really badly. They shouldv'e manned up, said they would immediately review supervisor training (especially regarding potential harrassment), put the supervisor on probation and offered a sympathetic ear to the girl. This has turned into a media circus because they didn't want to accept responsibility. Bottom line, 24-yr-old supervisor should never have sexual contact with 16-yr-old employee. (Really, any employee for that matter). The HR VP was an embarrassment to women and should be fired immediately for expressing her ignorant opinions. To relate ANY of this to parenting was just plain stupid. As many people as there are seeking employment at Sbux, their top execs should be way more educated.

[Tim]

Tim Horton's to blame? Seriously, folks! Are we just gonna stand by and let Canada invade?!

Okay, I know. Bad joke. But honestly... worst possible name to have in this incident.

[Adam]

See, this is what I do not get. They both had a relationship right? In order to have a relationship both sides must agree. Apparently something went wrong in that relationship and she decided to tell people about it. Now, WHERE does starbucks come into play? Granted, they both worked there and he was a supervisor but how are they supposed to prevent something that happens outside of work? She is suing the wrong person. The only reason she has to sue starbucks is because she wants money. This is not starbucks fault and they don't need to be dragged into it. Fire the shift manager, fire her, and be done with it. If she wants to further sue, she needs to take it upon him.

Just another way people are trying to get money and ruin the name of starbucks. It's pathetic.

[nancy]

Company has responsibility for training, ethics, legal and otherwise.

Second, the family is claiming continued contact after company was made aware.

Third, family is claiming company is publicizing this teen's sexual history in effort to fight suit.

Everything that happens on premise (including parking lot), particularly with employees of whatever status, is responsibility of company in one way or another.

Naturally I hope the damage is huge. If the company's initial reactions are indicative, they don't deserve to hire anyone.

[MOG]

Couple of items: 20/20 is an entertainment show, not a news show, don't count on it for anything but crap. Most HR policies for situations like this call for the alledged perpetrator to be suspended, with pay, in case it's a bogus accusation, until the investigation can be completed by the company. Given the number of employees (of ANY age), this probably happens with regularity. The employee has the choice to put up with it (ugh), leave (why should they?) or report it. Not wait until they can get a producer interested then sue. Even a teenage victim can make a decision how to pursue and in this case, it sounds like SBs is liable. Which means they'll settle our of court and deduct the settlement as a loss on their taxes.

[Hahaha]

Okay so here is what I think:

1) Far too many people actually trust that 20/20 is full of actual real news.

2) Apparently only one in 20 can read in this thread and didn't bother to look into the girl's past -which does matter in this case.

3) She got caught by her mom and blamed someone else because she didnt want to get in trouble again.

4) The girl is a total tranny train wreck of ugly.

I think the 4th is the most important...I mean seriously, learn to put your make up on like a real person, not like the corner street hooker.

Come on guys, this is BS.

[ex barista]

A lot of new info from the Orange County Register here: http://www.ocregister.com/common/printer/view.php?db=ocregister&id=230812

The article says she had 7 partners before Horton, and 5 after, and all but one of them was over 18. It also says this:

When Moore's mother discovered the relationship and called the police, Moore initially refused to cooperate. She also asked her boss – who had warned them about the company's policy on same-store dating – not to fire Horton.

Moore agreed to be transferred to another store, but continued to see Horton in secret, according to the records.

The relationship came to an end in July 2006, when her mother called Integrity House, a home in Utah for troubled teens. Counselors from Integrity House "abducted" Moore with her parents' consent, shoving her into a car and driving her to their facility, where she lived for the next year.

[Minnesota Barista]

This whole thing is total BS. Yes, Starbucks asking for her sexual history had EVERYTHING to do with the case, so those of you who think they had no right need to think about what kind of case this is. They didn't ask for her sexual history to paint her out as a slut, its information that is relevant to the case. Her parents need to stop painter her as an angel and a victim because she is NOT. At 16 she knew what she was doing. And the fact that she had multiple sexual partners all over the age of 18 already, plus more during the relationship, makes the whole case seem even more bogus. She had how many sexual partners that were statutory rape but the only one she reports is starbucks? Its BS, and its obvious she only wants money. She probably never felt that her job was threatened by Horton. Seriously, a shift? He couldn't have done shit about firing her or anything. As far as I'm concerned my shift is pretty much equal to me, just with a few more responsibilities to worry about than me. I would never worry that my shift could fire me, its a joke. She's coming up with excuses to make her case look legit but all she's doing is making it look worse.

And for those of you who think boycotting Starbucks is going to do anything, you must be idiots. Seriously? Starbucks will get a new customer to replace every one of you within an hour. Go ahead and buy your coffee somewhere else, Starbucks wont even notice.

[mary s]

blah,

the girl had sex with 7 guys before him, at 16 and then 4 others afterword...

shes no angel and was NOT unaware of her options. basically shes a little whore and now she wants starbucks to pay her for being loose...

yes i am a woman. i DID NOT have sex with 13 guys when i was 16, and the only girls that did where the whores/sluts. everyone knew they were sluts. and the only girls who answered "booty calls" were the sluts and the whores...

shes easier than ABC and she wants to make money for it...

[mary s]

and i cant believe people are saying that nothing happened to him...

he was fired, did 4 months in jail.

she had off the job booty calls (how exactly is starbucks supposed to prevent that, 24 hour monitoring on all its employees??)

[katelyn]

Some people who are bending over backwards to defend this girl's "honor" and trash Sbux really need some perspective. I'm 19 and have worked part time in fast food restaurants since I was 17. Anytime I had a male supervisor, I was hit on, as were all the other female employees. I was point blank asked and texted for sex by these pervs, but I said no and made my point clear.

This girl wasn't physically forced, all she had to do was say no. This is completely inane, all she wants are big bucks, and this cockamamie lawsuit is her golden ticket.

Starbucks corporate could only be held liable if she had filed a sexual harassment complaint and they failed to act. But it sounds like the parties involved just kept it hush hush the whole time. How did they fail to protect her if she was consenting to all this and keeping it a secret? That girl just got $$$ in her eyes.

[lynn]

I am outraged at Starbucks HR Execs (specifically Jana Rutt's response on 20/20) response as well as their lawyers attacks on this 16 year old girl. She was 16, the supervisor was 24 -- a huge power difference on two fronts. I don't care what her past was, at 16 and in that situation she was too young to consent. Starbucks has received the last of my money - ever!

[Chris]

The HR manager is a disgusting excuse for a human being. I will never again step into a Starbucks. I learned from sexual harassment training that if my employee feels uncomfortable in any situation, I need to do something about it, which I have. They work hard for me and I wont stand for them not feeling good about coming to work. Golden Rule - stupid Starbucks - think about it !!!

[Dev]

Tell starbucks about it email these
admin@starbucks.com.au,cardinfo@starbucks.com.au,media@starbucks.com.au,feedback@starbucks.com.au,investorrelations@starbucks.com,press@starbucks.com,APCommunications@starbucks.com,gc.communications@starbucks.cn,ukpressoffice@starbucks.com,pressla@starbucks.com,EMEAcommunications@starbucks.com,BusinessConduct@Starbucks.com,ethics@ethics.org,support@ethisphere.org,manager@ethisphere.org,

[Nike Shox R4]

Nice to browsing your perfect blog. It is filled with interesting and makes people realize that the world are very beautiful.

[David Jackson]

What about Starbuck's "corporate policy". If I remember correctly, their
corporate Personnel B!%@" blamed the 16
year old for the whole thing - on national TV. Not to put too fine a point on it but a 16 year old can't give consent to an illegal sex act, period.
The so-called supervisor committed a rape and got away with it...Starbucks SUCKS!, anyway. No pun.