I think Starbuck’s defense would come up short in this case. A small error in judgment in making a decision to fire her when all it would have taken was a little effort in making some accomodations for her.
Your thinking is small, and regardless of what they call their drink sizes this was and still is a reasonable request. Starbucks will end up paying a great deal unless they can prove that the step is a true hazard to customers and employees alike. I bet there is other equipment in their kitchen that is much more of a “hazard” than the step. Huh? Hmmm? Ahhh…
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
I think her claim will come up short. How could a company that refers to their smallest drink a “tall” be called discriminatory?
Haha!
I think Starbuck’s defense would come up short in this case. A small error in judgment in making a decision to fire her when all it would have taken was a little effort in making some accomodations for her.
Your thinking is small, and regardless of what they call their drink sizes this was and still is a reasonable request. Starbucks will end up paying a great deal unless they can prove that the step is a true hazard to customers and employees alike. I bet there is other equipment in their kitchen that is much more of a “hazard” than the step. Huh? Hmmm? Ahhh…
Just another case of big coffee crapping on the “little people”.