Opinion ID: 799606
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Discharge of Daniel Gross

Text: Daniel Gross was hired at the 36th Street store in May 2003. His first employee performance review, in November 2003, assessed his overall performance at 2.4meets expectations, on a scale of 1 (lowest) to 3 (highest). He was accorded particular praise for legendary service. In 2004, Gross became active in leading union organization efforts. On May 17 of that year he filed, on behalf of the IWW, a representation petition seeking to represent employees at the 36th Street store. Gross's next performance review came shortly thereafter, on May 28, 2004. In it his manager assigned him an overall rating of 2.7exceeds expectations. His significant accomplishments included his ability to build relationships with customers and coworkers and his ability to keep calm in times of stress. His areas of improvement included engagement with the employee awards program, and work in communicating changes in partner attitude (concerns, compliments, complaints) to . . . management. In August 2004, Gross began attending law school and reduced his availability from five to two days per week. Gross's next review occurred in May 2005. For the first time, this review included two 1 ratingsin the categories of Recognizes and reinforces individual and team accomplishments by using existing organizational methods (employee awards), and Contributes to positive team environment by recognizing alarms or changes in partner morale and communicating them to the management team. Gross's continuing failure to hand out employee-to-employee awards was again cited, as well as his failure to communicate with management. As in other reviews, his ability to connect with customers was listed among his accomplishments. Between May 2005 and January 2006, Gross's number of hours decreased dramatically. He worked a total of just twenty-five hours during that entire period, frequently giving away his shifts and asking for time off. Toward the end of this period, Gross's supervisor requested that he stop giving away his shifts to others, and he stopped doing so. Gross, however, did not increase his listed availability, and he continued to request time off, which was granted. As a result, Gross worked fewer hours than any other Starbucks employee from May 2005 up to the date of his discharge. [2] . In November 2005, Gross became a highly visible figure in the pro-union effort. He was quoted in various publications, including a high-profile article about the subject in the New York Times. He moderated a press conference on the unionization efforts, personally authored and signed letters to management, and authored and posted numerous press releases to a pro-union website. Id. Management was aware of Gross's activities and attempted to counter them with their own press releases and through letters to employees. After a delay caused by Gross's two-month absence in the winter of 2005, he received his next performance review in late January 2006. Unlike most such reviews, a DM was present as well as Gross's Store Manager (SM). [3] The review, which had an effective date of November 27, 2005, rated Gross at 1 in half of the categories, and 2 in the rest. Among others, he received a 1 in Adheres to Starbucks values, beliefs, and principles. His overall rating was 1.5. As a reason for the low scores, the evaluation cited Gross's low work hours and listed [o]pening his availability as an opportunity for improvement. The evaluation also stated that although Dan is familiar with our beverages enough to know the basic standards of recipe and presentation, he has had little exposure to our seasonal lineup and has not demonstrated that he has kept up his knowledge of current promotional items. The review also cited Gross's lack of proactivity, noted his continuing failure to participate in Starbucks's employee awards program and communicate with management, and stated that Gross does not display . . . a positive attitude about Starbucks to partners and customers. Gross testified that he asked the DM if he would have to open up his availability in order to improve his performance review, and the DM said no. Gross was asked to fill out a new availability form, but he put down the same availability that he had previously listed. He also signed the review under protest, suggesting that the ratings be increased across the board. His SM later noted in Gross's record that Dan did not work frequently enough to receive a high score. We are hoping that with an increase in shifts that [Gross] works over the next review period that we can help him bring up his scores by exposing him to promos and partners. There is no indication, however, that Gross was made aware of this additional remark. The ALJ concluded that some of these low scores were motivated by anti-union animus, but noted that [i]t appears undisputed. . . that Gross did not meet company standards in other areas such as utilizing existing organizational methods to recognize coworkers, training new hires and communicating partner morale issues to store management. Gross had his next performance review only two and a half months later, on April 14, 2006. The stated reason for the review was so new management could meet Gross and get on the same page. During the meeting, managers presented Gross with a revised version of his previous evaluation, with new narrative comments and new scores. Overall, the performance evaluation was slightly higher, partly because Gross's performance in Maintains regular and consistent attendance and punctuality was upgraded from a 1 to a 2 with a notation that Dan, as agreed to during his last review, has worked all of his shifts as scheduled and has been on time and in dress code on all occasions. The rest of the evaluation continued to fault Gross for failing to engage in the employee awards program, for failing to adhere to Starbucks principles and values, for failing to display a positive attitude about the company, and for failing to communicate with management. [4] An additional page of notes was attached to this review but never provided to Gross. The notes stated that Gross had failed to act on feedback and needed to increase his hours in order to improve. On April 29, Gross was given an Update on Performance by his SM. This memorandum listed Gross's lack of work availability and repeated many of the same deficiencies listed on previous evaluations. The memo stated if Gross did not improve these deficiencies and increase his hours by the next performance review, he would be terminated. Gross, however, made no efforts to increase his hours or improve other deficient areas. Furthermore, between April 29 and his termination on August 5, 2006, Gross was cited twice for instructing employees or managers not to do cleaning work. [5] The ALJ also appears to have credited testimony from a fellow employee that, during this period, Gross exerted little effort and displayed limited knowledge of drinks. On July 15, 2006, Gross had a tense encounter with DM Allison Marx during a demonstration outside a Starbucks store in support of a suspended employee, Evan Winterscheidt. As Marx walked into the store, Gross pointed his finger at her and repeated several times that it would be very bad for you to fire Evan Winterscheidt. Later that evening, Gross left a message for Marx stating that any action against Winterscheidt would be met with a swift response. Gross was discharged on August 5, 2006. One of the stated reasons was his threatening behavior toward Marx. In addition, Gross was provided with a final performance review, in which he received a score of 1.4. The review stated that Gross does not . . . say anything positive about the culture, values and mission of Starbucks, that he made little effort beyond the bare minimum, that he continued to refuse to participate in employee awards and communicate with management, and that Gross had not sufficiently improved his attendance.