At A few seconds ago, Rachel wrote:
At A few seconds ago, FairSquare wrote:
I don't know to be honest, I think so as it would go against many of the acts. Plus people sue over anything these days, I think it's ruined how people perceive it and what should and shouldn't be sued.
At 5 minutes ago, Rachel wrote:
It would be unfair if they didn't hire him because of the loss of one arm though, especially if he'd worked in such places before.Maybe it would be, but do you think that if they didn't hire him because he has only one arm, he should have the right to sue the company?
That's true. Well, in America anyways.
But i don't know, i think it's kinda logical that they would hire a man with two arms instead of one, since a man with two arms can just do much more work.
Then again, thinking from Starbuck's point of view, it would be good publicity.
If i were that one armed man though and they would say to me that i'm not hired because i have only one arm, i would understand. And i would consider to apply for different jobs and don't become a waiter of some kind.