Discrimination Archive

Should Dwarfism Preclude Working at Starbucks?

August 23rd, 2011. By AbiK

“Dwarfism is not a disease and opinions vary within the dwarf community about whether dwarfism is a disability. Dwarfism is a recognized condition under the Americans with Disabilities Act . Short stature can make some activities of daily living harder, such as using an ATM or gas pump. But most people with dwarfism have active, healthy lives and normal life spans.”

That’s a quote from WomensHealth.gov. The bold is from me as it caught my eye…is dwarfism a disability that’s rightly covered by the ADA? WomensHealth.gov is one of the sites I clicked through in order to try to gain more insight on the recent discrimination settlement where Starbucks agreed to pay $75,000 to a woman, Elsa Sallard, who has dwarfism and was let go after only three days of training as a Starbucks barista (“barista” being the adopted from Italy and seemingly inflated on US soil moniker for someone who makes, pours and hands over coffee, espresso or that quad venti skinny with whip iced caramel macchiato).

So Sallard, whose actual height has not been reported, must be 4 feet, 10 inches tall or less—as that’s the height one needs to be in order to be considered a dwarf (according to MedlinePlus, though the Mayo Clinic defines a typical range of “2 feet 8 inches (81 centimeters) to 4 feet 8 inches (142 centimeters)”). Four feet ten inches in and of itself would not seem to be a disability so I’m going on the assumption that whatever height Sallard is, she’s shorter than one needs to be to perform barista duties.

Regardless, she requested a stool or step ladder in order to facilitate her work behind the Starbucks counter. According to Reuters, the Starbucks manager at the location (El Paso, TX) where Sallard was being trained “ignored” her request and subsequently fired her, claiming she’d pose a danger to employees and customers.

While this may not be popular with all readers, I can see the manager’s point of view. I may not totally agree with it, and it certainly doesn’t align with how the ADA is worded**, but I can see where he might have been coming from. Particularly if the El Paso Starbucks was anything like a Manhattan Starbucks.

(**btw, the ADA considers a qualified individual with a disability to be “a person who meets legitimate skill, experience, education, or other requirements of an employment position that s/he holds or seeks, and who can perform the eessential functions of the position with or without reasonable accommodation. Requiring the ability to perform “essential” functions assures that an individual with a disability will not be
considered unqualified simply because of inability to perform marginal or incidental job functions. If the individual is qualified to perform essential job functions except for limitations caused by a disability, the employer must consider whether the individual could perform these functions with a reasonable accommodation. If a written job description has been prepared in advance of advertising or interviewing applicants for a job, this will be considered as evidence, although not conclusive evidence, of the essential functions of the job.” As such, dwarfism would be considered a disability.)

I recently had the pleasure of hitting a few Starbucks locations throughout NC, SC, GA and VA. It’s a pull up a chair and relax with some coffee kind of vibe. Not so in NYC. In New York, coffee’s gotta be served up PDQ or fuhgedaboutit. Doesn’t matter what time of day. So I can see where a manager at a busy Starbucks might first be thinking of mitigating the risk of injury prior to accommodating someone who can’t effectively reach all the necessary equipment to wait on customers.

It’s not hard to imagine the hustle and bustle behind the counter with waves of piping hot coffee (where’ve I heard that before?) cresting at the rim of every cup that’s being shuttled around. Throw in a step stool to maneuver about and it’s a burn injury waiting to happen at the very least; a slip and fall injury (or worse) at the worst.

The manager’s concerns—if that’s what they were—really aren’t part of the equation when it’s an ADA case. So for Sallard, Starbucks should’ve just run out to Lowe’s and gotten a blessed step stool. Instead, they’re coughing up $75,000 and providing diversity training on how to manage associates with disabilities.

Tags: ADA, Americans with Disabilities Act, Dwarfism, EEOC, El Paso TX, Elsa Sallard, Starbucks Discrimination, Starbucks Dwarf
Posted in Discrimination, Emerging Issues | 86163 Comments »2011-08-23+21%3A22%3A31AbiK

Playboy Class Action: Pretty is Free, Ugly Pays, Men Pay More

February 3rd, 2011. By AbiK

In what might seem like a class action ready-made for Attorney Alfred Rava, a gentleman from California—David Long, Jr. —is suing Playboy. Yes, that Playboy.

Why? Well, back in 2009, he apparently attended Playboy’s 3rd Annual White Party at the Playboy Mansion. And, needless to say, it costs money to attend such VIP-guest-only gatherings. Hey, the keys to the kingdom ain’t free. But here’s the thing—Long says he was charged a fair amount more to gain access to the pleasure palace than women guests attending the same fête were charged. Translation: discrimination.

It gets better. The charges against Playboy state that the cost of entry to the big bash was in direct correlation to how good-looking guests were. “Gorgeous ladies” got in for free or a nominal fee; those unfortunate (ie, less attractive and apparently less apt to make good “arm candy”) gals who were not to be deemed “gorgeous” were only (only!) charged $350 per ticket. Long, however, being in the most unattractive group of all—men—was charged $625.

Yes, this begs the question, if you didn’t like the price, why pay?

I could go off on some feminist rant here (I won’t) but one could argue that as women—”gorgeous women”—are typically objectified in the world of Playboy et al, surely you can’t expect “objects” to cough up cash, right? Only real people have the means to pay. And hey, aren’t the guys attending really going for the women who’ll be there? I don’t think that any guys would cough up any amount for a ticket just to hobnob with Hef. The girls are the draw, plain and simple.

So if you back out any feminist feelings—or even just the argument that, hey, you wanted to attend and you paid so get over it—and you just look at this from a pure segmented marketing perspective, well, I suppose it does sound a bit discriminatory. The White Party as a saleable product was not differentiated in any way—no intentional value added—for the male consumer. Inherent value added? Yes—but intentional so as to make it a different product offering for the guys? No. So seemingly the same product should have the same price tag regardless of who’s consuming it.

So Long seeks damages and he’s looking for the court to prohibit Playboy from setting discriminatory prices ever again. At least he’s not looking for a floppy hat, like Alfred Rava was.

Tags: David Long Jr, Playboy, Playboy class action, Playboy Mansion, White Party
Posted in Class Action, Discrimination | 6691No Comments »2011-02-03+18%3A53%3A00AbiK

Cross-Dressers: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

October 8th, 2010. By AbiK

Wanna know why cross-dressers continue to fight an uphill battle for acceptance? It’s because of situations like this. Just ask Dayanara Fernandez.

See, a while back, we posted about American Eagle Outfitters agreeing to ditch their rule about cross-dressers. The rule basically banned cross-dressed attire from showing up on AE employees at work. Like it or not, it was a step toward “mainstreaming”, if you will, and recognizing cross-dressers as a group that should not be discriminated against. Baby steps on a long road, but still.

But now, we hear Dayanara’s story. Apparently she had been a guest at the Deerfield, IL Hyatt hotel last June. And, as a hotel guest typically does at some point during their stay, she went back to her room. Only she must’ve felt like she’d just dropped in on scene straight out of Goldilocks and the Three Bears when she realized “someone’s been in my room…and he’s still here!”

Indeed he was—the “he” being a Hyatt employee. And, he was wearing her panties, skirt and high-heeled shoes, according to the complaint that was subsequently filed. He was Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: Cross-Dresser, Dayanara Fernandez, Discrimination, Hyatt
Posted in Discrimination, Emerging Issues | 5189No Comments »2010-10-08+19%3A00%3A04AbiK

Take My Mother-in-Law, Please! (Lawsuit vs Comic Tossed)

September 8th, 2010. By janem

Well, comedian Sunda Croonquist likely had the last laugh—all the way to the bank! She’s almost a household name these days after being sued by her in-laws for spreading “false, defamatory and racist lies” (see the video above to make your own opinion). I’d never heard of her before Ruth Zafrin, the mother-in-law, demanded a cash settlement for her “pain and suffering.” Anyway, U.S. District Judge Mary L. Cooper threw the suit out of New Jersey’s U.S. District Court April 30^th.

Croonquist alleged that Zafrin joined the action just to keep the issue out of Federal Court (where it landed because Croonquist lives in California and her in-laws live in New York and New Jersey). The stated causes of action included: false light, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress and unjust enrichment.

Her sister-in-law, Shelley Edelman, and her husband Neil (the brother of Croonquist’s husband, Mark Zafrin) were first to sue over the comedian’s schtick—which revolves around jokes about their heritage and her own–claiming Shelley is a racist. ( In her New Jersey accent: “Oh my God, Neil, look at her. She’s got light eyes and light hair, what kind of black person is she?”) And, “My sister-in-law’s voice sounds like a cat in heat.” (Croonquist is half African-American and half Swedish.)

Fortunately for Croonquist, Judge Mary Cooper had a better sense of humor than the in-laws and found the cat in heat comment to be “mere colorful, figurative rhetoric that reasonable minds would not take to be factual”. Cooper held that Croonquist’s jokes are Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: comedian lawsuit, Sunda Croonquist
Posted in Discrimination | 4908No Comments »2010-09-08+14%3A15%3A44janem

Overweight and Want a Manicure? Pay a Fat Surcharge!

August 24th, 2010. By LucyC

bathroom scale Overweight and Want a Manicure? Pay a Fat Surcharge! What would you do if you were charged, without advance notice, an additional fee for wear and tear of equipment related to a service you were purchasing, simply because you are overweight?

For example, if you went into a nail bar for a pedicure, for an advertised price, and were subsequently charged an additional $5 more at the end of your session because you were deemed to be over 200 lbs? Yup, you read that correctly. The five dollars would be a kind of tax, fine, levy…actually, I don’t know what category, besides discrimination, that charge would fit under.

Neither does the person who was charged the $5, as it turns out. Oh, it’s a true story. Short version, Michelle Fonville from Georgia, was charged an additional $5 by Kim Tran, the salon manager of Natural Nails in DeKalb County, as a surcharge to the salon for chairs broken by overweight customers, MSNBC.com is reporting.

It’s only my opinion, but I find that a bit of a cheek, for a variety of reasons, not the least being that all sorts of people use the chairs all day long—presumably—so how could wear and tear be solely the fault of people over 200 lbs? And, how could Ms. Tran Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: Discrimination, Georgia, Nail Salon, Overweight surcharge
Posted in Discrimination | 47961 Comment »2010-08-24+23%3A13%3A17LucyC