Starbucks Controversy

[Luffie]

There's absolutely nothing in the brief indicating who the men/boys she had sex with were. If they were people in positions of power, you bet your ass Starbucks would have mentioned it. This is shaming, pure and simple.

thats a fair point i guess i went off on a bit of a tangent, such is the way it goes when i try to be objective

not to poke holes but one thing that confused me is where they could possibly get a precise number like that from, i mean my initial assumption was that it kind of had to be based on some kind of dirt they dug up about employment history or something but like you said i dont see any reason why they wouldnt use such ample evidence for the case.

but then again im never convinced little reports like these are the whole story..well clearly not but i mean not even a fair fraction of it

 

[Mother Yeti]

I have no idea. All I know is that this girl could have slept with one person or 100, it's irrelevant to whether her relationship with this particular man was consensual.

And I would argue that a sixteen-year-old who has slept with seven people beforehand, and then goes on to sleep with a further five besides the one in the article [though this part is less relevant unless they happened during the time of the alleged abuse], has a significantly greater chance of willingly using her sexuality to further her career than somebody without such a history.

The onus is on the defendant to prove that this woman is some sort of man-eating vixen. Far more likely is that her 24 year old manager was using his position of power to take advantage of the teenage girls he was in charge of.

And we're talking about 5 men since she was 16. She's 20 now. One new sexual partner per year isn't unusual for someone who's not in a long term relationship.

 

[Raiha]

this is life on the bottom rung of a corporate machine. i knew a guy who almost lost his job because he showed an innapropriate video on his phone to someone, and another person who just happend to be in the same general vicinity felt uncomfortable. to be clear, the person who actually saw the video had no problem, just someone who saw that persons reaction to it had a big enough problem to tell the managers and corporate offices. this shit needs to stop. people are using it to get anything the just don't personally agree with banned while people with real legitimate complaints of sexual harassment get skepticism from people like me who have seen far too many people take advantage of the system to believe anything anymore. i would love to help out those who really need it, but i will forever worry about the legal issues and what i have to do as a manager to cover my own ass because of the environment that has been created because of BS claims like the one i just mentioned.

 

[Xhu]

The onus is on the defendant to prove that this woman is some sort of man-eating vixen. Far more likely is that her 24 year old manager was using his position of power to take advantage of the teenage girls he was in charge of.

That is a problem. Innocent until proven guilty never works out. And I do not believe that it was far more likely, considering the circumstances. Then again, I do come from a country where the age of consent is sixteen.

Besides, don't the company just have to prove that it wasn't their fault, they didn't know, and that they do their fair share to prevent such situations in general?

And we're talking about 5 men since she was 16. She's 20 now. One new sexual partner per year isn't unusual for someone who's not in a long term relationship.

Yes, agreed. That is precisely why I wrote the part in brackets.

 

[000Ronald]

I don't think people are thinking about this in context.

If it's OK for her boss to sexually coerce/harass her, does that make it OK for her teacher to sexually coerce/harass her?

Think about that for a second. If this was a teacher as opposed to a boss, would you be up in arms? I think you would. I think anyone would, because that's a big deal. How is this any different? It's an authority figure taking advantage of someone who doesn't deserve it.

To the people who said she should have acted up; that's the thing about authority figures. They know how to coerce people into doing what they want.

It bothers me that people think either that Starbucks needs to burn in hell or that the people in question are promiscuous. Try putting the shoe on the other foot.

Apologies Abound

 

[xyrafhoan]

Starbucks continues to charge $2 for a cup of fucking coffee, with a less shitty taste than Tim Hortons unless some dipshit got coffee grinds in the urn.

Fixed?

Fixed again?

Anyway, I don't see how this isn't the girl's fault. Starbucks actually maintains a hotline for employees who feel that their safety and security is being undermined. It's not some obscure thing either. The number should be posted up on the wall and all published materials from Starbucks also have this number. If she was worried about being involved with the police she could have let the company handle it for her.

The manager, on the other hand, can't do jack for himself. Even if it was consensual he would have been fired seeing as employee relationships (family or romantic) are forbidden at the same store. In any corporate business setting, it's entirely inappropriate for a boss to date/have sex any of his or her employees.

 

[000Ronald]

More like she feels bad or stupid or something for having sex with an old guy now she making up shit so she looks good. Like when they say they were raped after a drunken night or something. Although this may not be true it smells an awful lot of this siutation.

How would it be different if it were a fucking teacher? How?

Do none of you get this?

 

[Luffie]

I don't think people are thinking about this in context.

If it's OK for her boss to sexually coerce/harass her, does that make it OK for her teacher to sexually coerce/harass her?

Think about that for a second. If this was a teacher as opposed to a boss, would you be up in arms? I think you would. I think anyone would, because that's a big deal. How is this any different? It's an authority figure taking advantage of someone who doesn't deserve it.

thats the thing though, to me it would still be similar. Its not so much a case of whether there was "harassment" going on. I mean to me the word harassment plays a pretty big part in painting the picture and because we dont know the whole story (not being either the boss or girl) theres no telling just how willing both participants were, it couldve been harassment it couldve been two people fooling around and one person deciding to make drama or feeling regret/whatnot

just like with your teacher analogy, yes a teacher being horrendously lecherous and gropey is disgusting but a student/teacher 'thing' as taboo and immoral as its made to seem has the potential to be harmless(i mean hell i had such a thing for my english teacher in secondary school i wouldve done anything to him). And the thing here is, the latter example can be distorted with extreme ease to appear as the first, simply because there is so much moral and legal controversy tangling it up, with victim cards running amok just waiting to be brandished

 

[codebeard]

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?

She admitted to drinking and smoking marajuana, which is why i asked about the legality of such things. Im not from america so am not familiar with how these things fly over there and im pretty sure it changes from state to state which makes things even more confusing

5th amendment, you can't incriminate yourself.

Also, you can't take the testimony in one case over to another. It just won't stand up in court, the burden of proof is just not adequate enough, unless a cop actually catches you with an illicit substance and takes it as evidence then there really is no case.

Recently in the UK a celebrity was charged after they were filmed taking a drug, though they could ascertain it was an illegal drug but because they couldn't identify if it was a class A or class B drug nor even the quantities the jury was forced to acquit the accused because there was no specifics.

Uuhhh... nooooo~ The 5th Amendment doesn't work that way. To protect yourself from self incrimination, you have to invoke your 5th Amendment right. You can't go up to a police officer and say, "I just murdered my wife but you can't do anything about it because I'm pleading the 5th!" Barring any Miranda violations, anything you say is admissible. Otherwise defendant confessions would NEVER be admissible.

And in fact, in some cases what happens in one case can be carried over to another. There are some legal loopholes, but it's not totally off limits either.

Anyway, on the subject of sexual harassment, I think she'll probably win. Starbucks promoted this manager, so that's the equivalent of them saying "this is a trustworthy guy, he represents us."

And to those of you so eager to condemn the girl for "not saying no", it doesn't work that way because of the power imbalance some have already mentioned. This guy has control over her job, and she's a young girl who probably doesn't know jack about her rights as an employee. Getting a job is not a sure thing in this economy, so holding onto the one you have is almost required. You might as well blame a rape victim for not speaking up while the attacker holds a knife to her throat.

 

[TraumaHound]

Just to clear some of the air:

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.

I'll be 39 this year, been working for Starbucks since I was 22. True, we tend to hire younger folks but that's just the nature of the fast-food industry (which we're closer to than the retail world.)

Starbucks continues to charge $5 for a cup of fucking coffee.

In the Seattle area, even with tax, a Venti coffee is just over $2. The $5 drinks are much more than just a cup of coffee. Of course, prices vary based on location but I've not heard of any of our stores running $5 for a cup of drip coffee.

 

[Pigeon_Grenade]

there is all Sorts of Psychological Things that could be going on here, too tired to think bout that, in the end there either going to get settled out of court, or the Case will get Dismissed

 

[FranzTyphid]

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

THOSE COOKIES LOOK F##KING AWESOME!
anyway i prefere Costa

 

[ffxfriek]

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

YES in Gold Member when hes singing about his daddy.

just to share in the reference

anywho! The manager and kid should be fired and both be put in jail for wasting our time with their stupidity. and assholery.

 

[TyphoidMary]

You can't blame the girl for not saying no. If he had any power over her then she may not have felt she was in a position to say no. People (men) always think it would be so easy to tell someone who is trying to force you into sex no, but it's really not. Predators seem to have this sense for women who they can dominate and who won't talk afterwards, be it from shame or threats.
Until you can honestly say that you have been in that position and said no, you should back off. There's a reason these crimes are severely under reported.

 

[LongAndShort]

I do hate starbucks. With a passion. Thankfully they're slowly being phased out of Sydney. They just can't compete with GOOD coffee shops.

 

[TyphoidMary]

More like she feels bad or stupid or something for having sex with an old guy now she making up shit so she looks good. Like when they say they were raped after a drunken night or something. Although this may not be true it smells an awful lot of this siutation.

Is there something wrong with a girl saying she was raped after a bad night (esp. if she doesn't remember what happened?)? If a girl is drunk to the point where she agrees to do something she wouldn't normally (for example: sex with some asshole she doesn't know) and he takes her up on it, he is taking advantage of her altered state to get a sexual favor that she would not normally grant. That is wrong, plain and fucking simple. It's wrong for a girl to take advantage of a drunk guy too.

As for this girl, Katie, she was underage. She was 16, and despite the fact that girls of that age do have sex, that doesn't mean that she wanted it with him. She was put in an incredibly unpleasant position and she did what she thought she had to do to get through it. I don't think 4 months in prison for sex with a minor fits the crime. That implies that it was entirely consensual, and it certainly does not sound like it was consensual.

Starbucks shouldn't have left them in a situation where this could happen if for no other reason than to cover their own asses.

 

[rapidoud]

If this wasn't in America, the case would get laughed out of court. She consented, they have no case, and she seems overage.

Although, that is coming from the place where a woman tripped over a child in a furniture store who was running around rampantly destroying things and won the case. The child was hers.

Or the guy who was stuck in a garage eating dog food for 2 weeks as he tried to break into a house but the garage locked itself, and won the court case.

Thank god all the nonsense stopped. I hope.

 

[Deleted]

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.

Sometimes it seems like women(NOT GENERALIZING!) just lie in 'rape' cases like this. The guy is publicly shamed during trial time but when its proven that he didn't do it, what the fuck happens to the ***** who made the claim? Nothing, while the guy is thought of stillnas the rapist.

Methinks she did it for the sex then decifed to do this because she made him mad.