Starbucks Controversy

[skywalkerlion]

This is kinda old, but I think it has some discussion value.

A while ago on the television I heard on the morning news that a girl basically got sexually abused by her manager at Starbucks, that place that sells nice coffee but they don't feel the need to build any around my area (damn them). He wasn't threatening her at all, if I read this article correctly. Which makes me wonder how he was really being a sexual abuser or just a plain old douchebag, but let's say he was threatening her cause I doubt anyone would make a big deal out of this if he wasn't. They had sex alot as well. She claims to have done 'what she had to do'. After her lawyer asked her 'Couldn't you just say no?' she responded she didn't 'feel like she could'. Her mother said in an interview that Starbucks have to take responsibility with teenagers, and if they can't fulfill that 'they shouldn't hire them'. *facepalm* So now they're suing Starbucks. Starbucks is saying that it's her fault though.

Now the thing is, she could have told him 'No.' anytime she wanted to. Or call the police. Or anything. She could have done anything. Now don't get me wrong, the manager is an asshole and should be thrown in jail or what have you. But saying she couldn't do anything about it and letting herself be a sextoy is retarded, plain and simple.

The mother is another thing all together. Any large business isn't a freaking baby sitting service to your teenager. Saying they shouldn't take teenage employees if they can't be responsible for they're dumb-tarded (new word for you kids) actions is just utter B.S. And who are they gonna hire BUT teenagers? It's not like you see 40 year old I've-been-in-Walmart-all-my-life people coming to get an app for Starbucks.

[/endrant]

Here's the link: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/414590_starbucks24.html

I'm very anxious to hear what my fellow escapists think of this matter. So please share your opinions.

 

[Timotei]

Humanity continues to whittle down the wooden dowel that is my patience.

I think the fault is pretty much equal on both of them. for one the manager needs to be fired for engaging in a sexual relationship with one of his employees, and the employees for not being able to say no. It's not like he used the Jedi mind trick on her and she was utterly powerless.

The mother on the other hand I could really care less about. I think I can pretty much predict what's going to happen: They go up against Starbucks. Starbucks wins the case. Mom bitches to media about decision. Starbucks continues to charge $5 for a cup of fucking coffee.

 

[Hiphophippo]

The only conspiracy is how they get away with charging so much for what amounts to bottom-feeder coffee.

Seriously, that shit is vile.

 

[dalek sec]

Both the manager and said employee should be fired, the mom should stop talking and Starbucks should be cleansed with the Holy fire.

 

[Sir Kemper]

As a canadian i LOATH Starbucks, i have been forced to drink there Mix and Stir coffee crap for about a year now, and it's NEVER failed in giving me heartburn. Seriously, it's fucking Rancid shit.

I want my Tim Hortons back.

Sorry for going off topic, but i needed to get that out.

 

[Chewster]

and the employees for not being able to say no. It's not like he used the Jedi mind trick on her and she was utterly powerless.

There was a power imbalance, obviously, so she might have genuinely felt this was the case. And blaming the victim creates a rather dangerous precedent, I'd say.

 

[Pimppeter2]

she claims Starbucks did little to protect her from him,

Starbucks wasn't there.. To take me to the fair... to change my underwear...

*Cookie for reference*

Also Starbucks can fuck off and die, their coffee is worse shit than McDonalds, and thats at least only $1

 

[Sir Kemper]

she claims Starbucks did little to protect her from him,

Starbucks wasn't there.. To take me to the fair... to change my underwear...

*Cookie for reference*

Austin Powers! =D

 

[Dusty Donuts]

And how is it starbucks, the company, responsibility to make sure ONE employee isn't getting crap from the manager. HOW?!

 

[LeonLethality]

This is why Tim Hortons is far superior

ahem... I think they both have fault, the manager for taking advantage of her, and the girl for not saying no when she CLEARLY could.

People these days need to smarten up...

Wait wait wait...

"In the case of Katie Moore at Starbucks, the supervisor, Tim Horton, pleaded guilty to having sex with a minor and spent four months in prison."

WTF?! I doubt that is his real name!
[sub]Giving a bad name to the real Tim Hortons which is the best damn coffee shop ever[/sub]

 

[Mr.Pandah]

This is what society has come to nowadays. People want to put the blame on anyone else when shit doesn't go their way. Why didn't she do anything about it? Because she was getting what she wanted, and enjoying it on the way. Why did she start to complain? Because she wasn't getting what she wanted/thought she could get more.

 

[Pimppeter2]

she claims Starbucks did little to protect her from him,

Starbucks wasn't there.. To take me to the fair... to change my underwear...

*Cookie for reference*

Austin Powers! =D

Here are your cookies!

Spoiler

and if not then how bout some hot fresh

Spoiler

Choose wisely

 

[wandatheavenger]

Given the limited amount of information presented in the article, of course Starbucks is responsible. When a company promotes somebody to any sort of leadership/management position, they are responsible for that person's action on the job. Legally, there are ways to limit the degree to which the corporation is in an actionable position, but this appears to be a very straightforward case of quid pro quo sexual harassment. That said, the fact that she was a teenager should have bearing only on the prison sentence of the manager and not on the lawsuit against the company. The mom is just being a mom in this case and assuming her daughter's total innocence in the case.

 

[RUINER ACTUAL]

Who cares? They have great coffee!

When you work at a place like, or probably anywhere, they tell you that if something like this ever happens you're suppose to notify your superiors or the police. So he's retarded, she's retarded. They cancel each other out. That's the way I see it.

 

[Aerodyamic]

Starbucks continues to charge $5 for a cup of fucking coffee, with a sucky undertaste.

Fixed?

 

[Sir Kemper]

she claims Starbucks did little to protect her from him,

Starbucks wasn't there.. To take me to the fair... to change my underwear...

*Cookie for reference*

Austin Powers! =D

Here are your cookies!

Spoiler

and if not then how bout some hot fresh

Spoiler

Choose wisely

Suprise...canabalism?

 

[Xhu]

I hope Starbucks doesn't settle, and goes on to win in court, but this is most likely wishful thinking on my part.

The other incidents cited by the article seem much more extreme:

ABC News found other cases across the country, including at a McDonald's restaurant in Sacramento, Calif., involving a 16-year-old in her first job and a 23-year supervisor who the company fired a few days after her mother complained about what he had done.

"He grabbed my waist and pulled me back," says the employee, Kasey Ramirez. "I thought his plan was to rape me."

In another case, at a Taco Bell restaurant in Memphis, Tenn., a manager pleaded guilty to raping two of his 16-year old high school workers. One of them became pregnant.

The main story really doesn't appear to belong in the same category. Though I do wonder if the latter case quoted was consensual.

Edit: Nope, just checked another story on the subject. Definitely not.

Given the limited amount of information presented in the article, of course Starbucks is responsible. When a company promotes somebody to any sort of leadership/management position, they are responsible for that person's action on the job. Legally, there are ways to limit the degree to which the corporation is in an actionable position, but this appears to be a very straightforward case of quid pro quo sexual harassment. That said, the fact that she was a teenager should have bearing only on the prison sentence of the manager and not on the lawsuit against the company. The mom is just being a mom in this case and assuming her daughter's total innocence in the case.

But she didn't complain to anybody, say no, or really do anything. How could the company possibly have known, much less done anything about the situation?

Edit: Also, the cynical side of me can't help but wonder how much of this she planned in advance, or at least had a vague notion of.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

The manager sounds like a swine, but this is her fault. If you give your consent to sex multiple times, then that is your choice. No one else's.