One of America’s most visible corporations was taken to task for an Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) violation that stemmed from one branch’s poor management actions.
Starbucks Coffee Co. last week agreed to pay $75,000 to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC had charged that Starbucks unlawfully denied a reasonable accommodation to a barista with dwarfism at one of its El Paso stores and fired her because of her disability.
According to the EEOC’s suit, Elsa Sallard was hired to work as a barista at a Starbucks in El Paso. During orientation training, she suggested that she could use a stool or small stepladder.
But on her first day of work her manager refused her request. The company terminated her the same day, claiming that she would pose a danger to customers and employees. The EEOC sued after a voluntary corrective action process failed.
The Starbucks ADA consent decree contains the corrective measures Starbucks will take in and around the El Paso branch.
1) Promise never to retaliate against anyone who raises an ADA complaint, or against anyone who helped in Sallard’s case.
2) Post notice of the settlement and consent decree on a bulletin board at the branch where the infraction took place.
3) Conduct ADA training at all stores in Starbucks district 643, which includes El Paso. The training will also include a specific discussion or instruction relating to definitions of disability under the ADA, as amended by the ADA Amendments Act. It must focus on accommodations for people with disabilities, and one of the examples will have to be dwarfism. EEOC auditors must be notified of each two-hour training session.
4) Pay $75,000 to Sallard to cover wages, awards and legal expenses.
The decision to fire the trainee was most likely a store-specific decision by the on-site manager. Regardless, the decision and lawsuit fall on the corporation. Even if the decision was not reflective of corporate personnel policies (as we have to assume), the problem could have resulted from Starbucks’ failure to effectively communicate its ADA policies down to its branches.