ST PAUL, MN – In a rather bizarre, purported protest of sorts against police, reportedly employees at a St. Paul Starbucks location had refused to open the store and work if St. Paul Police officers were going to be outside the location to help safely direct traffic around their drive-thru location.
While the alleged refusal to work seems strange, it’s important to understand the correlation between this particular Starbucks location and local police directing traffic in concert with the locations drive-thru operations.
— Torey Van Oot (@toreyvanoot) April 27, 2021
This St. Paul Starbucks happens to be located at the intersection of Snelling and Marshall Avenues, which has been touted as one of the busiest in the entire city.
However, with this title of being the busiest location has spawned frustrations associated with traffic jams caused by the extensively long drive-thru line at times.
Apparently, there have been a fair amount of traffic accidents in the area, and contributing factors to said accidents have been the long drive through line at this Starbucks.
This is the best take in the whole damn comment section.
— !!(Alex Bates) (@notnotAlexBates) April 27, 2021
Thus, back in 2018, Starbucks had reportedly entered into an arrangement with the St. Paul Police where off duty officers would come to the location in full uniform to help direct traffic through the drive-thru lanes during the location’s peak hours.
And apparently, this relationship between the St. Paul Police and that Starbucks location has continued on without any issue or articulable contention.
Reportedly in the weeks that were leading up to Derek Chauvin’s trial, St. Paul Police Spokeswoman Sergeant Natalie Davis stated that the police department had suspended all iterations of off-duty employment by officers.
That's the problem. They aren't using logic
— HailtheFlashlightKing (@KingHailthe) April 26, 2021
The rationale behind this suspension at the time was to address the mounting unrest in relation to the fatal police shooting of Dante Wright, which occurred in the nearby city of Brooklyn Center.
After the conviction of Chauvin at trial, Sergeant Davis noted that things were returning back to normal in terms of traffic details and the ilk, and thus officers were allowed to go back to their assignments at that Starbucks location.
But apparently a group of employees at the location had formed a sort of pact to refuse opening the store location at all if any police officers or outside directing the traffic associated with the drive-thru line.
An unnamed employee had spoken to the local news publication the Pioneer Press saying the following about this “ultimatum” crafted regarding the refusal to work if police were outside directing traffic:
“We basically gave an ultimatum to our district manager and our regional vice president.”
As strange as that may sound, this group of employees professed concerns that there may be hostile interactions between white police officers and Starbucks customers that are black or of Somali descent.
Strange assertions aside from this rogue group of Starbucks employees, the location still does have a legally-binding agreement with the St. Paul Police Department. What comes of that agreement moving forward is anyone’s guess as of this writing.
Starbucks at Snelling and Selby remains open, but its drive-thru does not. A young man in the parking lot can hand deliver your order if you choose not to come inside. No police officer on duty. pic.twitter.com/Pn7Zr6catR
— Frederick Melo, Reporter (@FrederickMelo) April 26, 2021
What locals have pointed out is that despite the location being briefly closed on April 25th, it was reopened the following day but with one noticeable difference: the drive through lanes were blocked off.
It is unclear if the closure of the drive-thru is temporary or permanent as of this time.
Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters? Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you. Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories. Click to check it out.
When it comes to Starbucks, the company has a bit of a knack of attracting unflattering headlines due to the alleged antics of employees.
Back in November, Law Enforcement Today reported on a lawsuit that is still working it’s way through the courts regarding an employee terminated for reportedly refusing to wear a “pride” shirt while at work.
Here’s that previous report.
GLEN RIDGE, NJ – It seems as though Starbucks can’t manage to go a few months without finding their company name in the news.
And this time the debacle stems from lawsuit recently filed regarding a August 2019 termination of an employee who is claiming she was fired for refusing to wear a “Pride” shirt at work.
A case to watch. Did Starbucks violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by forcing an employee to violate her religious beliefs? A federal court will soon decide. https://t.co/IAgDW7djOq
— Ryan T. Anderson (@RyanTAnd) November 25, 2020
Starbucks has managed to make headlines in 2020 for all the wrong reasons (from an investor relations standpoint, more than anything).
This year saw headlines related to a cloth-like substance resembling a tampon found in a police officer’s drink from the coffee chain, to one barista filming themselves making a poisonous concoction they dubbed as the “Blue Lives Matter” drink while working.
And then, of course, there was the July 2020 incident where a Starbucks employee was arrested for allegedly spiting in a police officer’s prepared drink (likely not the smartest move during a pandemic).
Honestly, a company that has a sole purpose of selling variations of coffee and tea (alongside the occasional pastry or other similar food item) shouldn’t manage to accrue this many national headlines over these sorts of incidents.
But, alas, here we are.
The latest fiasco began back in June of 2019 when Betsy Fresse was working as a barista at a Starbucks in Glen Ridge, New Jersey. She had transferred to that location, having previously worked at a Hoboken location since 2018.
During a June 2019 meeting attended by Fresse and other employees in the store manager’s office, Fresse claims to have noticed a box of “Starbucks Pride” shirts by the manager’s desk.
According to the lawsuit filed, Fresse had approached the manager after the other employees cleared out of the office and asked if she would be forced to wear said “Starbucks Pride” shirts.
From from Fresse says of the interaction, she was informed by the manager that she would not be mandated to wear them as a condition of her employment.
Yet, weeks after the interaction, Fresse said she’d received a call from Starbucks’ ethics and compliance helpline regarding her request to not wear the shirt.
During this conversation with the ethics and compliance representative, Fresse alleges that she’d explained that she didn’t want to wear the “Starbucks Pride” shirt because “her religious beliefs prevented her from doing so.”
Come August 22nd of 2019, Fresse was informed that she was terminated from Starbucks because “her comportment was not in compliance with Starbucks’ core values.”
The official notice of termination Fresse had been handed down alleged that when she was handed a “Starbucks Pride”, she stated aloud that her coworkers “need Jesus”.
While Starbucks maintains that no employees are forced to wear “Starbucks Pride” shirts, the termination is linked to the comment of fellow employees needing “Jesus”.
Despite Starbucks’ claims for the termination, Fresse contests that characterization and maintains that she “holds no enmity toward individuals who ascribe to the LGBTQ lifestyle.”
Fresse alleges in the filed suit that the only time she brought up her religious beliefs to coworkers regarding sexuality was when it was “upon specific inquiry” – basically, only when her coworkers asked her about them.
Back in February of 2020, months after her termination, Fresse filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission related to being fired for her religious beliefs.
In the filed suit, Fresse is asking for backpay with interest, plus punitive and emotional damages.
A spokesperson for Starbucks claims that Fresse’s case and claims are “without merit” and that the company is ready to refute her claims in court when the timer arrives.
So here’s to what the entire case boils down to.
If what Fresse said played out exactly as she described it, basically her getting fired for the mere asking of whether she was forced to wear a “Pride” shirt – then Starbucks certainly would be in the legal wrong here.
However, if Fresse did make the comment of coworkers needing “Jesus” during the t-shirt inquiry while her coworkers were within earshot – then Starbucks would certainly be well within their right to have fired her for that alleged incident.
Honestly, either or described version of events from Fresse and Starbucks are entirely plausible scenarios that could’ve played out.
Because one would have to be kidding themselves to think that a Starbucks employee wouldn’t try to get a coworker or employee fired if they knew that they didn’t support the whole “Pride” movement/ideology.
Keep in mind, they’ve had to already terminate people this year for spitting in cops’ drinks and making videos online of poisonous concoctions they’d like to see police officers consume for just saying “blue lives matter”.
Ergo, it’s not at all crazy to think this same company would attract the sort of talent that would fabricate elements of an innocuous interaction in order to see a Christian lose their job.
As Dave Chappelle famously said in his stand-up comedy special Sticks & Stones from 2019, one must never criticize the LGBT movement in any way, lest they desire to arouse their collective ire:
“No matter what you do in your artistic expression, you are never, ever, allowed to upset the alphabet people. You know who I mean. Those people who took 20% of the alphabet for themselves. I’d say the letters, but I don’t want to conjure their anger.”
And at the same time, it is also completely plausible to think someone might say at work that a person or persons “need Jesus”.
It’s practically become an almost throw-away expression that has reached the point of being emblazoned on t-shirts available from Wal-Mart.
What this case is going to boil down to is what can be proven.
However, perhaps Starbucks as a whole should really take a gander at who they’re hiring, as they’re not doing a stellar job of attracting talent that keeps them out of the headlines it seems.
Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today? With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.
Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing! (See image below.) Thanks for being a part of the LET family!