Starbucks Controversy

[Luffie]

banging your boss and having that dirty little feeling of being his sex toy is fun
realising you now have near definite grounds for a court case which will result in like..months and months worth of pay without you having to do a single lick of effort is even more fun

leverage or not she always had a choice, i dont claim to know how this particular girl feels but its only through benevolence im willing to give her enough credit to not be 16 and still have no common sense or reasoning capability, to *actually* think she "did what she had to" - as in: if she wouldnt do it she would get fired, first off, thats not exactly the end of the world, secondly they need to have at least some grounds for firing her otherwise it would be a blatant case for unfair treatment. In this scenario, if anything, she did what she thought she "had" to do in order to move up from the grunt work and land a job with more pay/less labour.

 

[Sir Kemper]

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

Fixed?

Quoted for truth, My good man.

 

[Mother Yeti]

And let the victim blaming begin!

"I felt like I didn't have a choice," Moore, now 20, told ABC News."I was ashamed and embarrassed. And I felt like he had complete control over my job... he knew all this stuff about my family and my friends and my school."

She says the supervisor would summon her for sex in hundreds of text messages, including one that said, "I'd liked to f--- tomorrow."

"It was an everyday, numerous times a day occurrence," Moore said. "And I just saw it and did what I had to do."

Starbucks is now trying to discredit her by bringing up her sexual history.

 

[Bladecatcher]

I really don't think there's anything I hate more than this sexist old school of thought. "Oh, the big strong man made some sexual advances, so I had no choice but to oblige him and not inform anybody!" Come on ladies, time to kick some ass! Have you ever played a fighting video game? The girls are always the best! You don't even need to learn some BS-Fu secret fist technique; next time he makes advances towards you, give him a face full of Vanilla Latte!


Oh, wait I professional wrestling.

 

[wandatheavenger]

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.

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?

There've been numerous cases in the past where persons did not complain to anybody in HR or otherwise and still won. The current trend for a long time now has been toward making companies more and more responsible for this sort of thing.

 

[Xhu]

There've been numerous cases in the past where persons did not complain to anybody in HR or otherwise and still won. The current trend for a long time now has been toward making companies more and more responsible for this sort of thing.

Oh, I'm aware that she has a good chance of winning. I said as much in the first part of my post. I just do not think that she should.

 

[skyfire_freckles]

A long time ago, when I was a young thing, one of my managers really made me uncomfortable. He was always touching my shoulders, back and sometimes hair. I'm very uncomfortable with people touching me anyway. But I didn't do anything for a long time, because he touched everybody so I figured he was just touchy...and I was touchy, in a manner of speaking.

But because I didn't say anything, I always had some doubt; maybe I hadn't made myself clear, and it was my fault.

So then I was in the breakroom with a bunch of other women; I'm near the door, looking inside, talking with them. He comes up behind me from the doorway and blows in my ear. So I turn to him and say very loudly: "You will not do that ever again. Do not touch me or enter my personal space. Have I made myself clear?"

The other ladies laughed and applauded. For the next few days he slunk around pouting. "Why does she hate me?" he'd say. Or, "I'm sorry you hate me."

So I tell him. I don't hate you. I just don't like people touching me. Point is, he backed off, because I told him to. I kept my job, and things got better. Even if I'd gotten fired, it wouldn't have been fair, but it wouldn't have been the end of the world.

Maybe it's not fair, but I just don't understand why someone wouldn't speak up.

 

[Mother Yeti]

There've been numerous cases in the past where persons did not complain to anybody in HR or otherwise and still won. The current trend for a long time now has been toward making companies more and more responsible for this sort of thing.

As they should be. Clearly no one in this thread has ever been in an abusive or coercive sexual relationship, or known anyone who has. When someone takes advantage of you like this - particularly if you're a teenager who may not be aware of the law or your rights - they know how to manipulate you, make you feel powerless. He may have told her no one would believe her, he may have convinced her it was consensual, he may have threatened to fire her or tell her friends she was a slut (which she herself implied). It is a very scary position to be in, I hope no one here ever finds themself in such a relationship - but please, have a little compassion.

 

[Xhu]

Starbucks is now trying to discredit her by bringing up her sexual history.

Starbucks disclosed in court papers that the woman has had sexual encounters with 12 men other than Horton, seven of them before she met Horton.

It seems relevant in showing that she is not a sweet, innocent flower in need of overprotecting. To be clear, I am in no way saying this makes her a flaming slut who deserves to be mistreated because she's just so darned sinful, and so on, but she apparently knows what sex is about. A judge granted the motion, obviously believing that it is admissible as evidence, and therefore relevant.

I apologise if my wording makes this seem as if I am condemning her for it.

 

[Steppin Razor]

There are a huge number of issues in a case like this. Sexual harassment incidents are generally the nastiest cases that get raised.

She's a young woman trying to keep her job. Add to that the fact that she's trying to keep her job in the middle of a fucking recession and you can see that she was probably under a lot of pressure to keep up her performance. It's especially hard work finding a job when you're a teenager at the moment, and getting fired impacts on your chances of finding another job. There is also a serious imbalance of power. This guy holds all the power over her. First and foremost, he is her boss. Generally if he does anything and she speaks out against him, she will be fired and the company will back him. Add these two together and you have a situation where sexual harassment/abuse go on almost unchallenged because not allowing it to happen results in being sacked or an increase in the harassment until she quits.

On the flip side, sexual harassment cases are quite bad on the justice side of things at the moment. It's not about proving guilt anymore, but about proving innocence, which is completely backassward and really needs to be fixed.

[sub]I'll add more and tidy this up in a while. Finishing work for the day and I want to get home as quick as possible[/sub]

 

[grimsprice]

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.

Ahhhhhhh. Sue, you got in trouble for nothing. Boo. Annnnnnd you continue demonstrating your clairvoyance. This is exactly what will happen. Especially the whole $5 coffee thing.

 

[ultrachicken]

I don't think starbucks should lose money over this, but that manager needs to spend time in jail. He had sex with a fucking MINOR.
But the girl is insanely stupid for not saying no. "I didn't feel like I could say no" is BS. No teen needs a job that badly.

The mom seems like she may have set this up so she could sue starbucks for some easy cash at the expense of her daughter, but that's probably just my conspiracy radar malfunctioning again.

 

[Jaythulhu]

The hell do people still go to starbucks for anyway? The coffee is absolutely feral shit.

 

[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.

Ahhhhhhh. Sue, you got in trouble for nothing. Boo. Annnnnnd you continue demonstrating your clairvoyance. This is exactly what will happen. Especially the whole $5 coffee thing.

It's not so much clairvoyance as it is betting on an outcome which seems to happen 90% of the time.

 

[tmujir955]

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.

Mmmmm...doesn't it look delicious? You know you want it...

 

[Mother Yeti]

Starbucks disclosed in court papers that the woman has had sexual encounters with 12 men other than Horton, seven of them before she met Horton.

It seems relevant in showing that she is not a sweet, innocent flower in need of overprotecting. To be clear, I am in no way saying this makes her a flaming slut who deserves to be mistreated because she's just so darned sinful, and so on, but she apparently knows what sex is about. A judge granted the motion, obviously believing that it is admissible as evidence, and therefore relevant.

I apologise if my wording makes this seem as if I am condemning her for it.

The case does not hinge on her being a sweet, innocent flower. It hinges on her being a minor who was sexually coerced by her adult manager while on the job. That Starbucks is attempting to win a case by essentially pointing at this woman and yelling HARLOT, is absolutely disgraceful.

 

[lenneth]

And let the victim blaming begin!

She says the supervisor would summon her for sex in hundreds of text messages, including one that said, "I'd liked to f--- tomorrow."

Bad spelling reeks of BS

"It was an everyday, numerous times a day occurrence," Moore said. "And I just saw it and did what I had to do."

And where did these occourances take place? if it was at work ten surely they both violated the health code or if she just went to his house, how did anyone not notice something was up?

and looking through the article i find this:

A lawyer asks her, "So you said you drank, smoked pot and had sex, is that correct?"

Katie Moore answers, "Yes."

Isnt the legal drinking age in America 21? and isnt pot illeagal altogether? even if she wins this case (which i really hope she doesn't) she should be charged accordingly

 

[Xhu]

The case does not hinge on her being a sweet, innocent flower. It hinges on her being a minor who was sexually coerced by her adult manager while on the job. That Starbucks is attempting to win a case by essentially pointing at this woman and yelling HARLOT, is absolutely disgraceful.

To clarify: Which case do you mean? The one in which the manager was sentenced to four years in jail - rightfully - or the one in which Starbucks is being sued?

 

[Mother Yeti]

The case does not hinge on her being a sweet, innocent flower. It hinges on her being a minor who was sexually coerced by her adult manager while on the job. That Starbucks is attempting to win a case by essentially pointing at this woman and yelling HARLOT, is absolutely disgraceful.

To clarify: Which case do you mean? The one in which the manager was sentenced to four years in jail - rightfully - or the one in which Starbucks is being sued?

The one in which Starbucks is being sued.

Isnt the legal drinking age in America 21? and isnt pot illeagal altogether? even if she wins this case (which i really hope she doesn't) she should be charged accordingly

Charged with what? "Smoking pot four years ago" isn't a crime in the state of California.