There is an interesting controversy brewing at Starbucks after a former executive, Janice Waszak, sued the company over her firing as wrongful termination due to her exposure of alleged defects in new store equipment, including a coffee maker that has an alleged maggot problem. She also alleged sex discrimination. Starbucks insists that the allegations are “entirely without merit.”Waszak said that she was fired after questioning the safety and functionality of a proprietary equipment system known as the Siren System, which Starbucks told investors would dramatically increase productivity.
The lawsuit claims that “after further testing, Waszak learned Siren had several defects that created health and safety risks.” Indeed, she insists that she flagged what she thought would be a disaster for the company, adding that Waszak “realized that Siren might never be profitable and could lead to deep financial losses for the company.”
She alleges that Starbucks conducted a live demonstration of Siren for a large group of district managers and regional directors at the Tryer Center in October 2022. During the demonstration, “maggots dropped out of the overhead milk dispenser and fell onto the counter and beverages.” The complaint states that Waszak “later learned that the maggots had bred in Siren’s milk dispenser because it was improperly cleaned.”
Her complaint names her superior, Vice President of Global Equipment Natarajan Venkatakrishnan as allegedly resisting her criticism. In an August 2023 email from Waszak, titled “Mitigating Risks in Store Tests,” she reportedly told her team to prioritize customer and staff safety. Venkatakrishnan allegedly pushed back, warning her the email “could become part of a lawsuit.”
Starbucks insists that she was not fired for such allegations but “was separated from the company after an investigation into allegations that her conduct violated Starbucks workplace conduct policies.” The company said it looked forward to presenting “evidence in court.”
The maggot allegation is particularly damaging to a beverage and food company. The specific factual assertions made with regard to the demonstration should be relatively easy to confirm or refute in discovery.
The controversy raises an interesting tort question over business defamation or, in some states, product disparagement. While filings are generally privileged for defamation purposes, Waszak may have made these allegations outside the litigation.
However, in 2022, Washington enacted ESHB 1795, which generally prohibits nondisclosure and non-disparagement provisions in employer-employee agreements. The law voids any nondisclosure or non-disparagement provisions that would conceal or prevent the disclosure of conduct that an employee reasonably believes under state, federal or common law to be illegal discrimination, harassment, retaliation, a wage and hour violation, or sexual assault, or that is recognized as against a clear mandate of public policy.
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
If the rights, freedoms, privileges, and immunities conferred by the Constitution and Bill of Rights are not absolute, they do not exist, leaving the freedoms of Americans to the whim and arbitrary actions of random individuals.
When the communist black robe juristocracy is compelled by Congress to do its sworn-oath duty to support the Constitution, it will find in the absolute 5th Amendment right to private property that only the owner may “claim and exercise” dominion and only the owner has the freedom, right, and power to hire, fire, pay, and direct employees, in exclusion of every other individual.
Private property is a constitutional right, which means it is not public property and not subject to the dominion of government.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”
– James Madison
I thought the maggots were an integral ingredient in those high protein lattes.
The vermin are less disgusting than the prices.
Maggots are about the only species left that aren’t protected by Democrats, but give it time.
Industry growth is inhibited by a litigious public, even as the prices for the product increase. Presently, we are not privy to why the questions of machine failure and alleged sex discrimination, as well as retaliation related to reporting safety concerns, arose at the same time. Perhaps in the future, Starbucks will, if it hasn’t already, outsource some of the testing to spread liability and create two channels of reporting to management, which could reduce pressure by sharing legal responsibility. This, and ensuring employees have more than one way to report problems (other than their immediate bosses in a singular chain), demonstrates due diligence and allows for early detection of issues.
Where did you come up with this nonsense.
And this: “Industry growth is inhibited by a litigious public, ” Are you employed as an industry analyst? No. You have no idea what drives “industry”; not mentioning the indsutry you refer to.
I know this from personal experience. Where do you get your information from? The dirt in the street?
S. Meyer – good points all around. Ignore the Anonymous the Stupid above, who understands nothing.
What are the good points?
All of them.
“outsource some of the testing to spread liability and create two channels of reporting to management…”
Made sense to me.
I’m going to complain to Darren about the unsanitary conditions on this blog. I keep seeing troll scat in the comments.
Thanks, Oldman. There is nothing anonymous has in his head, so information bounces around the skull and comes out sounding stupid.
Not sure what to make of this one. It is either true or it is not about the maggots and the like. That should easily proven or disproven. If it is a disgruntled employee as Starbucks suggests, then they could be facing problems due to bad public relations. However, there may be cause for damages due to wrongful allegations.
If it is true, then Starbucks has a much bigger problem because it’s true and they tried to hide it from the public. Cleanliness is everything for safety in the food business.
I am betting this gets settled out of court Starbucks makes no admissions.
Congrats to the ridiculous children running Starbuck’s on their hiring of ridiculous children as frontline employees. These people are all ridiculous. Could be karma, but it’s definitely a metaphor. The entire leftist culture is a dumpster fire.
This is what happens when your company insists on hiring activists. Eventually, they run out of causes and turn inward to whatever is near them. Starbucks made a big mistake in not giving this employee a million bucks, a Starbucks-forever card, and a good, swift kick out the door. Now, she and her lawyers, mostly the latter, will get much more when they litigate this suit. As the professor suggests, the company may have extensive incriminating information on the employee, including her disparagement of the company outside the workplace.
That alone should stimulate an early settlement as Starbucks cannot afford to take this to trial and have all the dirt, literally, come out about its “proprietary” coffee-making equipment. It took Chipotle more than a year and a small fortune to regain profitability after a similar scare some years ago over food safety. The people don’t like Starbucks’s pricing, although they like its product. This does not create customer loyalty in Starbucks, but only in its product that others can and do make just as well.
Thus, if the public turns on Starbucks, it’s curtains for the corporation and its maggots. It’s time for Starbucks to play “The Price is Right” and open its big checkbook. Maybe next time, they’ll hire conservatives for the front office. As a rule, they are far more loyal.
Well it seems a bit much but there has to be more to this story. Virtually any food product machine can give rise to organisms and/or maggots if not properly cleaned. The question would be whether this was a design flaw or staff failed to clean the equipment properly. If you have worked in a restaurant or coffee house or other such establishments, proper cleaning and maintenance of your equipment is paramount and some do it very well and some do it poorly.
I think that is why we have food inspectors and you see reports in newspapers, either written or online, about whether a food establishment has failed or passed its inspections. Did this board member actually find a design flaw or did she go ballistic because staff failed to clean appropriately. Won’t be the first time that a “design flaw” was blamed when the culprit was poor trining or poor maintenance and cleaning.
Seems like we are going to have to stir the grounds a lot more before we see a resolution to this “outrage’ in the coffee world.
GEB: I think you’re correct to a degree and some of what you say no doubt will be offered as a defense if this ever goes to trial, which is doubtful. Still, it’s not so much the condition of the equipment in question as to the behavior of the employee and employer after the demonstration of the equipment determined serious issues. A wrongful termination suit will not hinge on whether what the employee said was correct but to whom she said it and what were the consequences. Turley says the State of Washington where, presumably, this case will be tried, prohibits non-disparagement clauses in employee-employer agreements. If this is correct, it means that the company must find something else to justify firing. Turley’s description suggests the company may have other evidence to buttress its firing of this employee. We’ll have to wait to see but I still think both sides are just posturing now to affect the final settlement figure.
You as usual repeat Turley.
Anon: We saw something similar in the past when liberal activists tried their hand at capitalism. Ben and Jerry’s was a very successful ice cream company that started from scratch by two young men from Long Island who tried marrying their social justice ideals to the ice cream they made and sold. It worked for a while and in 2000, a British-owned company called Unilever bought Ben and Jerry’s for $326 million and agreed to keep Ben and Jerry, the original owners on board.
This worked until Unilever recently objected to Ben and Jerry’s activism in support of the Palestinians. This alienated the company’s long-standing sales arrangement with Israel and caused turmoil between Unilever and Ben and Jerry. Jerry resigned as a result. The original owners then sued Unilever over its political differences. The litigation continues, and the once successful company known as Ben and Jerry’s is forever buried in an avalanche of legal problems and debts. Activists do not make good entrepreneurs because, at some point, even if initially successful, their myopic views will often annoy and dissuade customers from buying their wares.
Starbucks needs to understand this or it will soon go the way of Ben and Jerry’s. Thank you for your comment.
JJC,
Great comment and thank you for the back ground on the litigation between Ben and Jerry and Unilever. The minute Ben and Jerry began their activism in their product, I boycotted them.
No charge for the maggots. Please tip generously though.
“Yes, please prepare for me a double espresso triple latte half oat milk half soy extra maggot, and PLEASE check that the maggots are fresh, still wiggling!”
Dusty
Nothing to FLY off the handle about🤣
$12 cup of coffee 🤣
“$12 cup of coffee”
I was first exposed to Starbucks the first time I traveled to corporate HQ of a company in Southern Connecticut that had just bought the one I was working for. That was about 1996. From my first cup, I thought it was far overpriced garbage. Shortly after that I began patronizing the Dunkin’ in the same town for my coffee on those trips. Their coffee was not perfect, but it was much better, and far cheaper, that the Starbucks “product”. I have no information about whether or not Waszak’s allegations are factual, but I would not be surprised in the slightest if they were.
My wife love Starbucks. Me not so much, tastes like burnt coffee.
Poor Starbucks.
Things are not like they use to be.
Really. prove it liar.
Anonymous, being a parasite to Dustoff is getting very tiring and extremely boring. Get a life.
Hullbobby
I’m guessing Ano has no life. Other than hating any and everything.
What a pitty
Pitty? Really. A 4 letter word and you can’t spell it correctly.
Dustoff, ain’t you the guy who claims two “collage” degree?
Oh yeah. Ain’t you the guy who’s always swearing and threatening commenters?
Anonymous Parasite,
Very easy to prove you moron.
Yesterday’s weather was different no? Things are not like they use to be.
Logic. Pow right in the kisser. you dope. WE win.
(see how easy it is to troll with more effectiveness if you just put a little effort into it)
Look at the issues they are dealing with you fool.
Plus the stock is not meeting their goals.
Stock is singular. And BTW, what are their goals?
“Really. prove it liar.” ….
Realy …. that is so well thought out. Impressive. Looks like you should take a nap at recess time today.
Go help a homeless person, or volunteer some time a a pet shelter.
Lets get you a better ROI on your use of time & space on the planet.
Realy? Must be dustoff’s wife. How selfless you are.
DustOff,
Yeah, one opened in town. I went in once just to check it out. A few of the employees had multi colored hair. They did not even acknowledge my existence as I stood at the counter. And when they did take my order, it was like I was an inconvenience. As far as the coffee, not worth the price. Will not go back again.
I imagine your persona screams “hate multi colored haired people”. Don’t blame, blame yourself.
And therewith, you make no impact on Starbucks revenue or profits.
You would imagine wrong. Again. The 7Brew Drive Through down the road has a young woman working there with blonde and pink hair. She is very courteous, prompt and professional. The Starbucks employees, all of them, seemed annoyed and dismissive.
7-Brew gets my business. Starbucks does not.