Comments on: Barista Sues Starbucks for Statutory Rape

By: Starbucks Settles Statutory-Rape Case « Siouxsie Law

Starbucks Settles Statutory-Rape Case « Siouxsie Law — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 03:24:23 +0000

[...] in January, Siouxsie blogged this case. The former barista claimed that over a period of months her 24-year-old shift-supervisor, Tim [...]

By: Siouxsie’s Peeps « Siouxsie Law

Siouxsie’s Peeps « Siouxsie Law — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 20:58:55 +0000

[...] Doe v. Starbucks — teenage barista sues Starbucks for statutory rape by shift supervisor [...]

By: amywilson

amywilson — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 00:57:13 +0000

I was going to say – clearly, the girl is in it to cash in on the millions generated by the Tom Horton empire. (they’ve opened in nyc as well!)

By: Suzanne

Suzanne — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 15:00:45 +0000

I agree with your analysis, but as a reader from Canada, at first I wondered if this post was some type of joke. You see, we have a fairly brisk competition up here between coffee establishments, with two of the main contenders being Starbucks and a national chain by the name of Tim Hortons. I kid you not.

By: Lee

Lee — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 03:56:03 +0000

Seven years age difference is a big thing when the girl is 16 and the guy 23. (Not so much between, say, 30 and 37).

I must confess that I’m a recovering Plaintiffs’ Attorney so I may be biased. But I’m okay with Starbucks getting hit hard as an example to other companies. (As long as its not my client).

Lee

By: siouxsielaw

siouxsielaw — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 03:39:12 +0000

There were criminal charges. Tim Horton pled guilty to a felony and spent four months in prison. He was charged with a felony and not a misdemeanor because of the age difference.

She faces an uphill battle to get millions (the judge already threw out her claim for $10 million in punitive damages). But she can probably get a nice sum in settlement (in her favor is a fee-shifting provision, some serious missteps by Starbucks, and bad pr for Starbucks). And who knows, she could do well before a jury.

By: Peter

Peter — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 23:07:09 +0000

Nice post, Siouxsie, and I think you are spot on. I think the other issue that will affect her damages is the fact that the shift supervisor was only 23 years old at the time of the relationship. I think the jury will have a harder time to penalize Starbucks in light of the relatively small difference in age.

But I do wonder why she is bringing it. And were there any criminal charges? I think she faces an uphill battle.

By: Lee

Lee — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 16:38:24 +0000

An interesting case. Whatever your take on statutory rape laws, the girl in question — as a matter of law — was too young to give her consent. Furthermore, there is inevitably an issue of coercion when a manager is engaging in a sexual relation with a subordinate.

Starbuck did indeed drop the ball here. It will be interesting (from a lawyer’s viewpoint) to see if this goes to trial and what a jury does with the evidence.