Starbucks pays $80,000 after job applicant with multiple sclerosis isn't hired (or interviewed)

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says Chuck Hannay applied for one of six open barista positions at a Starbucks store in Arkansas but was never contacted for an interview. People with less experience and availability were hired instead of Hannay, the EEOC alleged. Read "Starbucks to settle discrimination suit filed by EEOC"

Comments

[ash_sk8s]

People will do anything for a lawsuit. How do they KNOW the new hires had less experience or availability?

[crazy]

My friend's store gets hundreds of applications a month (he's next to a high school and college). He says he never has enough time to go through ALL of the applicants. Didn't know someone could sue for that. That's intense

[me, myself and I]

So now we HAVE to hire or at least interview people that could be considered handicapped or part of a visible minority?

[baristabev]

WTF, how would the manager even know the applicant had MS (or any other disability) and discriminated against the person? I dont remember the old paper apps having any questions about that, and I dont think the online apps do either.

[baroosta]

baristabev, that's what I was thinking. How the hell did the manager know that this guy had MS? Did he put that under "relevant skills" on the application? I am really confused and angry because I feel like this guy was just out to TRY to get some money from Starbucks...

[Waltie]

As loathe as I am to comment on a court case about which I know NOTHING (and neither do any of you), it seems highly unlikely that Starbucks would settle unless it appeared as though something inappropriate took place. I doubt they would settle with a person who just turned in an application and that was that. I'm guessing the plaintiff can show proof that he or she at least met the manager or certain employees.

[baroosta]

waltie, it does say that he was never contacted for an interview. The only thing that I can think of is that he turned in a paper application and one of the partners told the manager not to hire him because of his perceived disability.

[Christinschu]

Yeah, how on earth would an the SM have known if there wasn't an interview.

Also, the one of the biggest things we hire for is Interpersonal Savvy. I often hire people with no experience and or limited availabilty if they have the right people skills.

I don't know if Starbucks KNOWS that they would have lost the case, but rather didn't want to risk having a big bad PR case made of this.

[baristamclane]

What?!? Do you realize how many paper applications one Starbucks store would receive? I'll give you a hint, my last store had half of a filing cabinet drawer dedicated to those applications, and an old manager of mine was not afraid to drop her stack of apps on the desk with a "thud" when issuing a corrective action form to one of her partners (as a reminder of how easily and quickly we could be replaced). I'm not sure what this new online application process entails, but if its anything like those used by Best Buy, Target, or Petsmart, I'm not surprised Mr. Hannay was never contacted for an interview.

But that aside, I thought you were not obligated to disclose any disabilities to your potential employer during the application/hiring process. And I have to agree with baroosta and baristabev. How could the SM have known of Hannay's medical condition unless it was specifically documented in his application? Was there any indication that the SM of that store even pulled up and reviewed his application?

After all of these reports of Starbucks lawsuits being settled out of court, I'm a little resentful. This guy isn't even a partner and he just received a sum of money that would take me roughly seven years to earn from Starbucks!

[Bill]

ashj, they know because both sides have the right to question the other. If Starbucks didn't think there was a high risk of losing, they never would have settled.

[jabanga]

it always amazes me how posters on here have such a strong knee-jerk reaction to any litigation regarding starbucks while possessing such a completely limited knowledge of the details. it is so predictable it is ridiculous. you can speculate all you want, but you really have no idea what happened.

[baroosta]

Neither do you, jabanga...

[Waltie]

"After all of these reports of Starbucks lawsuits being settled out of court, I'm a little resentful. This guy isn't even a partner and he just received a sum of money that would take me roughly seven years to earn from Starbucks! "

It's too bad you weren't lucky enough to get multiple sclerosis like this guy! I feel so bad for you.

[baristamclane]

@Waltie, It's too bad I wasn't beckoned for sexual favors either. My college tuition would be squared away ;)

[A Non eMoose]

Waltie, I wouldn't be so sure that Starbucks happens to know something we don't about this situation. Though that is likely, it's just as likely that corporate decided that settling for 80k was cheaper than the lawyer and court fees otherwise. I mean, really, it's just 80k (a lot to most of us but a pittance in corporate tort).

[tom]

starbucks hiring policy is racist

[spence]

Tom, Starbucks hiring policy is not racist and you're foolish to suggest otherwise. Perhaps they didn't hire you because they immediately sensed that you were a trouble maker.

[just saying]

not to be a jerk but if the applicant was not able to meet the job requirements which include some lifting, moving about the floor quickly to multitask, and reaching and bending for product then they would not be hireable based on inability to do the job.

[BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL]

We work with plenty of brain dead partners at Starbucks.

[BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL]

And in the future there will be a certain ratio of minorities on staff at Starbucks.

[BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL]

I'm sure with Optimal Scheduling they wouldn't be able to get the necessary coverage to "accommodate" him. He would also be a drain on healthcare resources if he decided to apply for healthcare insurance since he would have to be covered even though he has a pre-existing condition.

[BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL]

I can just see him spilling hot coffee on a customer and then what?

[baristamclane]

@just saying, I agree. However, not every person diagnosed with MS is physically incapable of performing the duties that our job entails. Besides, if Starbucks were to terminate baristas based on inability to meet the physical requirements of the job description, every partner who uses the "I'm not strong enough to lift the [dirty] anti-fatigue mats" claim would be let go...which would probably comprise of 25% of store partners...

[Sarah]

I've applied for 20 some jobs in the past 6 months and do you know how many I've heard from for an interview? One. Sure none of us know what happened, and honestly no one probably does.
If he was capible of filling the position, too bad he didn't get an interview. Just like the hundreds of others that didn't as well. Here's an idea. STFU.

But hey, not to worry. Now he has 80,000 of dirty money to live on. I hope him and his lawyers are proud of themselves.

[a]

what a lie. there's a girl in my district who suffers from ms.

[Sick, Hot, and Tired Barista]

Starbucks in horrible at disability awareness and sensitivity. SM's get little to no training in the ADA whatsoever. I had an ASM tell me once that she didn't have to grant me a reasonable accomodation, and that a job at Starbucks did not fall under equal oppourtunity or the Americans with Disabilities Act. I also know of another case where a heavyset barista was continually criticized by a shift about her weight and how it affected his deployment. No, Starbucks gets a big F in sensitivity and equal oppourtunity.

[me, myself and I]

I am sorry, but if your disability affects the job, you just can't do it. Isn't it reasonable for a company to chose whoever seems to be able to fill the job best? I mean, don't get me wrong, no one should be discriminated, but if you can't do the job, you won't be able to get hired. If you can however, you deserve a fair chance. BUT this shouldn't mean you automatically get the job either. There are lots of able, healthy people out there these days that don't get an interview or a job offer. So why should it be different for the disabled ones?

[Darth Sidamo]

I once had a shift with epilepsy. This meant since the shift could not drive that they could not perform duties like taking a deposit, could not stock (no lifting allowed) and put things away, could not bar (incase seizure while steaming), and many other tasks. As a person born with an undersized heart as well as a few other conditions from an umbilical cord I do understand what it is like to live with limitations.

However, I do not expect to be treated as special and do not sign up to do tasks that I am incapable of. This shift made a living at other baristas expense.

In America you have rights unless your rights impede that of others. This person with MS just wants a pity party. Any person with a real disability knows that we do not want any special treatment and being treated differently is insulting.

This lawsuit is a step backwards for people with disabilities wanting to be treated fairly.

[drive]

Starbucks has a long history of violating the ADA. Hooray that this guy went forward with his lawsuit. Starbucks treats its employees and applicants as disposable. If any partner were to develop a disease, you can bet that Starbucks would fire him or her within the day.

[Georgia Latte]

Drive.... I know this is a gossip site and all, but could you back up any of your statements with any facts? As for the comment about Starbucks firing anyone the day they find out they had a disease... come on that is probably the stupidest thing I have read in a really long time.

[formermanager]

MS is not always symptomatic. But regardless, at what point did this guy decide to milk some money out of Starbucks? Labor is SO tight, that to plan a schedule around a handicap is nearly impossible. It sounds mean, but is reality. We had a guy with both physical and mental problems at my old store, and all he could do was ring....slowly. He eventually quit because it was too much. He was the nicest guy you'd ever meet, but it didn't help anyone for him to be there.

[Jason Coffee]

#1 : If a law exists you should follow it.

#2 : Most Starbucks probably get hundreds of applications a month so more than one of those is bound to fall through the cracks.

#3 : Starbucks didn't want this to drag out in the courts getting them tons of bad publicity.

#4 : The only decision here is to apologize, take the necessary steps to recover and pay.

I am not saying whether the SM made the right or wrong decision or whether the guy was just scamming the system (We don't have all the facts.) I am just saying we can't necessarily take Starbucks settling to mean they are actually admitting any guilt. I think this was there only play plus it might have actually saved them money to just settle.

[SPORK]

is anyone else super offended by what just saying just said?

the whole point of an equal opportunities hiring company is that such things as lifting, reaching high shelves, and carrying trays etc. can be made more flexible so people who have MS or other debilitating diseases can find work at our stores. it's not about whether they can lift a ten pound box of coffee, it's whether they can deliver legendary service to my customers. If they can, then I can absolutely do that garbage run for them.

and this goes a lot further then someone with disabilities. people with gender or sexual orientations that don't match up with society's normalcy shouldn't have to worry about that having weight on whether or not they are hired.

embrace diversity!

[BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL]

I still believe that it was a labor issue.
You are only as strong as the weakest link. And obviously it would be a problem. It would simply bring down the store and therefore the DM would wonder why the store isn't running at a negative VTI. Like lets say you can't it alone for more than 2 minutes because it can't move fast enough to cover the floor?
You have to examine the practicality of having it work at Starbucks under these circumstances. And then when it starts complaining about not getting enough hours. What are you really suppose to do?

[MSpartnerSbuxPartner]

BSR....You are a horrid excuse for a person. Calling someone "it" because they are not like you and you're apparent greatness is not only bigoted its also extremely stupid.

[doesntplywellwithtother]

As a parent of a child with CP I can empathize with someone's difficulty finding a job if they have a physical disability. But if my son told me he wanted to apply at ( you pick), I'd go over some of the obvious physical requirements of the job and discuss with him the likelyhood he'd actually be able to do the job to the best of his ability.

I too am curious as how the manager knew the applicant had MS. Here's a great idea. On every application put somewhere you have MS. Now the hiring manager can't say they didn't know. Find the right lawyer and you can make a living off of a sueing usng the ADA. And remember to only apply to places where it would be an issue. Oh, and make sure they are a large company with a public image to uphold.

[Christinschu]

MSpartnerSbuxPartner. Lol are you serious? I hope you are joking. BSR is obviously not calling the appicant "IT" but rather the situation.

[Mark]

It is illegal in all states to ask for race, national origin, religion, DISABILITY, creed, or sexual orientation on a job application. When a store manager receives an application (either paper or on-line) there is absolutely no way to know who or what was applying for the position.

How can a job applicant know the qualification of other job applicants unless they subpoena the application from that store?

This is strange. It appears the EEOC was looking for a test case. Starbucks settled rather than fight (and maybe win).

[snagger]

Do you think that SBUX would have laid off a partner at the SSC because she had been treated for breast cancer? It was a group layoff but do you all know what the criteria were. Age,sex,looks?

[drive]

@Mark, there was a previous EEOC case against Starbucks. Perhaps you are not aware of the 2006 case of the Seattle barista who had bipolar disorder and depression? She was fired by a new manager. Starbucks has a policy of discriminating against disabled people. Such discrimination is illegal as well as morally reprehensible.

[BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL]

I was being sarcastic in referring to the person as an "IT."

Starbucks has a pathological pattern of behavior of treating humans as objects. That is treating them without respect or dignity.

They choose constantly to violate people and the law.

The mentality of Starbucks ethics and business conduct is "THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS" otherwise known as being goal-oriented. Anything is allowed to go to meet labor requirements, Via sales, etc.

Starbucks is no longer concerned about the human person and we are "ITS" in their eyes.

[BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL]

I have heard both the SM and DM say that "It doesn't matter how you get the job done as long as you get it done."

Thanks, I'll remember that for my new "ethical" lean and better ways of doing things at Starbucks.

[BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL]

Consequentialism refers to those moral theories which hold that the consequences of a particular action form the basis for any valid moral judgment about that action (or create a structure for judgment, see rule consequentialism). Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right action is one that produces a good outcome, or consequence. This view is often expressed as the aphorism "The ends justify the means".

WIKIPEDIA

[@PaPi™]

There is no question, Starbucks definitely discriminates . It is most common during the hiring process but goes on in store level as well, it's sad but thats life...

[Bdubs]

Dear Corporate,
Your a bunch of pussies. Grow some balls, there is now way in hell the manager knew he was disabled. You really need to get a better legal department. As a SS I think i could do a even better job than your overpaid lawyers.

[BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL]

I think this person might've been going to Starbucks and the SM knew that it was disabled.

[Melody]

@Bdubs - Have you ever heard of the ADA (and don't forget there's always case law too) as well as interrogatories, discovery, and depositions?

Whatever came out in those, probably gave Starbucks a reason to settle, but we will never know all the details. News articles like this, stir up people, give a little snippet, and have no facts from whatever came out in the discovery process. And BostonStarbucksRebel proposes a perfectly normal explanation - The person had been in before as a customer.

Who knows. Maybe Starbucks could have litigated this all the way. If they had thought there was no merit to the case they would have filed for Summary Judgment. Actually, this news article is so badly written, we don't know if that happened or not either.

The news article tells you there was a lawsuit, and then jumps to discussion of settlement, with no mention of the entire procedural history in between those two big events.

[Amy]

I have MS, and I worked for Starbucks for 5 years. Seeing that was a shocker and kinda made me happy I no longer work there.

[Roger Waters]

If you can't do the job, you can't do the job. Nothing more to it. Simple as that.

[drive]

@Roger Waters, At my store we have a lot of partners who suck. They are not disabled and they still do a lousy job. Just because someone is able-bodied doesn't mean he or she is a good worker. Many disabled people would do a far better job if given the chance.

There is a huge range of what "do the job" means. Do the job well, do it poorly, do it well some of the time, do a bare minimum, go above and beyond......it is not "simple" at all. Especially because at Starbucks doing the job involves dealing with people, not just lifting heavy boxes.