That’s the word from the corporate level.
It’s possible that the local manager violated that corporate policy.
It’s also possible that the employee was an ongoing annoying religious zealot.
And there are 100 other possibilities as well.
Truth of the reason for the dismissal has not really been defined.
That’s my thinking.
I won’t be surprised if that’s the upshot. But I’m waiting before adopting that assumption.
If she wins (i.e. if she was wronged) I see no reason to not have them pay her attorney’s fees. Back pay for hours not worked, emotional distress $ for being fragile are one thing. But the attorney fees were needed for her to right the wrong done. (predicated on her winning, i.e. having been wronged)
She WAS NOT required to wear the shirt. Didn’t the Holiday cups go against her religious beliefs too?
And another tidbit: “She regularly requested Sundays and certain evenings off to attend church gatherings.” When I worked at a retail establishment, I couldn’t get Saturdays or Sundays off because of church.
Not seeing this in your link.
Cool story, but it’s moot to the discussion.
That’s what I am doing. It’s an interesting story but lacking details.
Yepp. Same in my place too.
Shirts and hats have to have company logos on them.
We are given some freedom with pants and shoes. Blue jeans or slacks. Tennis shoes or boots.
It wouldn’t be the first time …
Or “Proud to be a Christian”?
If it was her choice.
Why should Starbucks (or in this case, one of their managers) push any employee to wear any piece of clothing that advocates an agenda?
Here are the tshirts. Except for the rainbow colors, which symbolize the gay pride, they’re pretty much Starbucks Pride tshirts.
I don’t understand the idea of pushing gay pride onto employees who don’t fit that description.
I wouldn’t wear that rainbow.
All three of those shirts go beyond just starbucks pride. She should win her lawsuit.
In my opinion.
No it wouldn’t. A “Pride” T Shirt may be antagonistic or offensive to some customers.
There is a big difference in taking actions that might antagonize or offend your customers and doing nothing.
People who are anti-LGBTQ don’t drink Starbucks anyway. 
Are we sure she wasn’t just doing a lousy job?
Do any of your company uniform shirts or hats involve the word “pride” in rainbow colors?
I’m leaning a little more towards the plaintiff in this one. Sounds, as in the original link, she doesn’t feel any animosity towards other than heterosexual people, but doesn’t see the movement as a sort of pride she should be forced to display.
