Is Starbucks blaming the victim?

[NJFemmie]

Originally Posted by Linus

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.

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).