Hang on though, she took a job on she couldn't do, a job (measuring and recording temperature) that is very important to the public's health. Did she disclose her problem at the interview?
I wonder how many on here would be baying for Starbucks blood if food poisoning had occurred?
Legitimate discriminating regarding whether someone can or can not do a job should never be illegal, regardless of how the inability to do the job on offer is caused.
I don’t understand this judgement. The law demands that restaurant fridges and freezers be maintained at specific temperatures. Starbucks was accused of failing to make reasonable adjustments for this woman’s disability, but I’m at a loss to think of what adjustments they could have made when her disability renders her incapable of doing that specific job.
an absolute nonsense...she obviously wasnt capable of doing the job as required....how did she complete the application form in the frist instance anyway...im guessing she got somebody else to do that for her, or at the least check it over...
So are Starbucks supposed to make allowances for her problem and get somebody else to check all the readings are correct....
She was accused of falsifying documents. They were filled in incorrectly therefore they were not true. This lady should have made it clear to management that she suffered from dyslexia & maybe just maybe she would have been given other tasks that did not involve reading & writing. You really cannot blame Starbucks if they were not made aware of the situation.
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.