Is Starbucks blaming the victim?
 

16-Year-Old Starbucks Barista Sues Over 'Sex Demands' at Work

An "alarmingly high" number of high school students are reporting sexual advances from their adult bosses and other supervisors at some of the country's best known fast food operations, according to an official of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

"It's an incredibly serious problem," said Bill Cash of the EEOC in an interview to be broadcast tonight on the ABC News program "20/20."
"Employers that choose to use high school kids to work have a responsibility to protect these young people," Cash said. "We don't want them to be fondled, we don't want them to be raped."
Watch "20/20" tonight at 10 p.m. for the full report.

The issue is being raised in a number of lawsuits, including cases now pending in California against Starbucks and a McDonald's franchise owner.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE.

Kati Moore of Orange County, CA claims a 24-year old supervisor at Starbucks made almost daily demands on her for sex, months after she began working as a 16-year old barista.

I felt like I didn't have a choice," Moore, now 20, told ABC News."I was ashamed and embarrassed. And I felt like he had complete control over my job... he knew all this stuff about my family and my friends and my school."

She says the supervisor would summon her for sex in hundreds of text messages, including one that said, "I'd liked to f--- tomorrow."
"It was an everyday, numerous times a day occurrence," Moore said. "And I just saw it and did what I had to do."

She says other Starbucks supervisors and managers knew what was happening but did nothing to stop the illicit relationship.

After the young woman's mother learned of the relationship, she alerted prosecutors who brought criminal charges against the Starbucks employee, Tim Horton. After claiming he did not know the barista was 16 years-old, Horton pleaded guilty to a felony charge of illegal sex with a minor and served four months in prison.

The family has sued Starbucks claiming the company failed in its responsibility to protect the young woman from Horton.

Starbucks executives declined to be interviewed but in a statement the company said, "These two employees concealed their relationship from Starbucks, which violated company policy. We are confident that the case will ultimately be resolved in finding that Starbucks is not at fault."

Starbucks Statement

I am really glad times have changed since we were teenagers and people now care about this sexual harrassment and abuse. No one did 30 years ago it seems.

I do wish there were more of an effort to let young girls know that they don't have to participate and that unless they are homeless or responsible for their own upkeep, it is not the end of the world if they have to quit jobs or turn their managers in.

Maybe as more cases like this are prosecuted, this type of thing will stop or at least lessen.

PS. adds and to young guys too, it happens all the time. One of my friend's son is a checker at a grocery store and so many of the women who shop there hit on him and say disgustimg things to him and he is just a kid. One just buys giant cucumbers and lube. He has started calling his manager when she comes in to check her out.

Yes it is. Try clicking the links in the story for more.

It is a real story. Horton is still a common family name and they may or may not be aware of the famous franchise to the north (given it's in California).

I do think that the corporation should have taken a way different stance on this given that she is stating that she was NOT interested or involved with supervisor. Their message is suggesting, IMO, that even if you were forced to participate (at fear of losing job, friends, etc.) then you were "agreeing". And that, plain and simple, is wrong. I hope they get their asses served on a platter.

I have any though of blaming the victim, she is 16 legally a child.

Though, in the case of a 24 year old supervisor, the companies need to have training so they (the supervirors) know what is an is not acceptable and legal with no question.

This is ridiculous on Starbuck's part because this describes quid pro quo
which is against the law. They would know this if they engaged in PROPER workplace violence/sexual harassment training. (Not just handing an employee a piece of paper at the time of employment that states what not to do and hope the employee READS it, let alone doesn't do it).