Starbucks Thinks You're Homeless, Tosses You And Your Coffee Out On The Street
A woman was tossed out of a Glen Ellyn, IL Starbucks after being mistaken for homeless. From the Daily Herald:
The 70-year-old Lisle woman was kicked out of the Starbucks in downtown Glen Ellyn a few weeks ago. She claims it was because employees mistook her as a homeless person, part of a purge the store waged to mollify customers who complained that the coffee shop was overrun with the homeless.More inside...Despite an apology from the Seattle-based coffee giant, Kilborn says she isn't looking for one. She wants something done to address the circumstances that prompted her removal in the first place.
"The issue here is not that I was asked to leave Starbucks," Kilborn said. "It is the treatment of the homeless who are singled out."
Some downtown merchants, though, are defending Starbucks, saying many homeless people linger around the business district waiting for nearby overnight shelters to open.
Louise was singled out because she had been talking to a homeless person whom she recognized from her volunteer work. Louise used to be homeless herself, but now spends her time helping others.
Kilborn knows what the homeless are going through; she used to be one of them.Starbucks has apologized for the incident. —MEGHANN MARCOSince finding a place to live in September, she's devoted Sunday afternoons volunteering at Glen Ellyn's Welcome Center, a site offered by First United Methodist Church.
About 1:15 p.m. Feb. 25, she prepared for her shift in the same way she's done many Sundays before: enjoying a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
"I cannot tell you how much I love Starbucks," she said. "It's the world's greatest coffee."
But on that particular Sunday, Kilborn broke from her usual routine. Instead of sitting alone, she went to sit with a homeless man she knew from the Welcome Center.
The man immediately told her he wasn't staying - that he had been told to leave.
Kilborn was trying to ask the man why he had to go when a Starbucks employee tapped her on the shoulder and asked her to leave.
She wasn't given a reason.
But Kilborn believes it was because the employee mistook her as being homeless. Several homeless people have been told to leave the Starbucks in recent weeks, she says. In some cases, police were called.
When Kilborn refused to leave, police officers responded to make sure she left.
By the time it was over, Kilborn recalls standing outside the Starbucks - fuming.
"I had my coffee in my hand," she said. "It's still too hot to drink - that's how little time passed."
Booted from Starbucks [Daily Herald via BoingBoing]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. In ornare magna et est porta et mattis lorem tristique. Mauris ultricies tortor a augue eleifend Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. In ornare magna et est porta et mattis lorem tristique. Mauris ultricies tortor a augue eleifendLorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. In ornare magna et est porta et mattis lorem tristique. Mauris ultricies tortor a augue eleifend
Post a comment
Comments:
Sorry, but I'm behind Starbucks 100% on this one. OK, 99%. I deduct 5% for getting it wrong. And then award them another bonus 4% for "their treatment of the homeless." I want my triple fatfree mocha latte stench free, thanks.
Every Starbucks in my neighborhood (3 of them) is where the heroin users go to shoot up. It keeps me from going there. :-/
The Consumerist: We Hate Lawyers AND The Homeless
Print that on a t-shirt. (This is a reflection of current comments and does not reflect the editorial content of The Consumerist)
Last time I checked a business had a right to limit access to its premises to paying customers, and has an overwhelming interest in doing so when the presense of non-paying loiterers -whether they be homeless, bored suburban teens, or wifi hogging bloggers- is deterring paying customers from patronizing the store.
How does one go from being homeless to being able to go to starbucks every sunday? Hell I actually own a home and I won't spend that much on coffee that apparently McDonalds can beat.
I think she may end up being homeless again if she keeps going there.
I live in Lisle and visit that Starbucks occasionally...
I kind of feel bad for Starbucks in this case because I know the sort of crap the employees have to deal with, but on the same note, I feel bad for the homeless for getting singled out as the "easy" group to kick out.
For example: There are often certain... recently arrived Eastern European teenagers that hang out at area Starbucks in large numbers and one kid will buy some gum every few hours... meanwhile theres 15 or so teens tearing apart the store and being complete assclowns.
The employees can't kick these kids out... but I guess if someone who can't afford coffee takes up a seat they can get the boot... It looks like the employee just made a mistake and it got put in the news.
Luci@vanilla-fro: Lucid point... but it seems people on the bottom rung always have a vice to help make life easier. If it's coffee instead of smokes or lottery tickets, so much the better.
@Pelagius: The woman who was booted was drinking a Starbucks coffee. I would hope that if she'd stolen it, that would have made it into the article.
I back business 100%. Kicking the homeless out is smart.
~ But ~, ya, they made a mistake. They acknowledged, apologized and this lady needs
to get on with life.
Has she asked herself yet, while standing in front of a mirror, "Why do so many think I am homeless? I'm a good person, I look good, I smell good and gosh darnit, people LIKE me."
ha ha ha
Being tossed out of a Starbucks for being homeless? I think it's....TIME FOR A MAKEOOOOVVVEEEERRR!!!!
@vanilla-fro: By getting a fricken JOB. You make it sound like once someone's homelss they can never amount to anything.
I'd be on the business' side if they had a clearly stated policy like: Stinky people not allowed. But something as vague and judgemental as 'you look homeless and you are sitting near him so get out' is not a fair and reasonable thing to do.
Besides, some stinky people live in houses.
Last time I saw a homeless person in a Starbucks they started eating sugar packets, peed their pants, got it all over the floor and ran out.
I'm no meteorologist, but I'm going to take a wild guess and say it might have been cold at some point in the past few weeks in Illinois.
Wow, I'm not homeless but I can't afford starbucks even remotely. I must be doing it wrong. I'm sure there was a sign (as there is in most establishments here) that patrons are only permited to sit at 20 minutes, and only if they are customers. if the lady wasn't allowed to loiter, well whooopee, its private property ... get over it. A business dosn't like people hanging around without them buying product? thats a shocker! unless she was physically kicked out, or they threw out the coffee which she'd paid for then she has no grounds for gripe here. suck it up. Starbucks isn't your living room.
It sounds like this was a one off situation and the employee made an honest mistake. I live in Chicago and there are a ton of businesses I don't want to buy from because they are overrun with homeless people. It sucks but I don't see how you can blame them.
@kornkob, sure she could get a job but you'd think that when she did, buying overpriced coffee would be pretty low on the list of regular purchases.
Starbucks should just enact a policy like "No Shirt, No Shower, No Service" and kick out all the stinky people. Of course, that might entail kicking out the smelly hippies, too. I understand Seattle is filled with them.
@Pelagius:
I thought that was a given as well. If you are not supporting a business, why should it be assumed that you should be given the same accomodations as a paying customer? Granted, I sympathize for anyone without somewhere to go, but when did a coffee shop become a rent-free temporary dwelling.
And to Starbucks, coffee in hand equals paying customer. Even your trendy-ass hipster baristas should know that.
but meanwhile, if you are blond and dressed in khakis you can take up a whole table typing at your Mac for several hours straight
@not_seth_brundle: I was addressing the situation of people "camping out" in general, not this woman's particular case. If the homeless guy on the corner wants to use his money to buy a $2 coffee and sit there to drink it, he has as much right as the soccer mom with her frappuccino.
Off topic: I hate Starbucks coffee
Whoa "A business has a right to limit access to their premises to their paying customers"? The woman had a cup of coffee in her hand - FOR WHICH SHE HAD JUST PAID STARBUCKS. Starbucks isn't kicking out the homeless - they're apparently kicking out people whom they feel are not the kind of clients they want. In other words, if you're poor and your one enjoyment is a ridiculously expensive cup of coffee, you'd better put on your Sunday best or Starbucks won't let you sit to enjoy your coffee at their premises. I can understand requiring that people actually purchase coffee, etc. But this is out of line - what's next, no blacks, no disabled, a requirement that you be wearing Jimmy Choo's?
@Rajio: Except Starbucks's well-publicized goal is to be customers' "third place," i.e., a place to spend pleasurable time. Ejecting a paying customer (whose coffee wasn't even cool enough to drink yet, according to her statements) undercuts that policy, I'd say.
And who knows what she's getting at Starbucks? I'm thinking it was plain old coffee, not triple-shot caramel macchiatos with extra whatever. Does anyone seriously think that $10 a month spent on drip coffee and a pleasant place to sit is going to break the bank?
Another thing: I'm not a regular Starbucks patron, but I'm often there sitting at a table with someone who has purchased a drink. I've never been asked to leave. Shouldn't Ms. Kilborn's friend similarly have enjoyed the protection of her paying-customer aegis?
In regards to all the people who seem to be saying that homeless people have an inalienable right to go wherever they want no matter what: private property. As has been noted, if a theoretical homeless person were to purchase a coffee and site for an hour drinking it then Starbucks would have no cause to kick them out. As is more often the case I've seen, they don't buy anything but rather make the rounds of everyone in the store pestering them for money. And those are just the well behaved ones.
I have tremendous sympathy for the plight of the homeless, and I donate to the local shelter both time and goods. But their condition doesn't grant them the right to interfere with other people's rights (e.g. the business, who has paid for the property, staff, supplies, etc etc and most importantly a license which grants them the right to conduct their business in that location).
@questionthemark: It must be tough going through life with no sense of humor whatsoever. Waaaaaaaaaahhhh
"Starbucks isn't kicking out the homeless - they're apparently kicking out people whom they feel are not the kind of clients they want."
Therefore an apology was issued for their mistake. A stupid mistake, but something they did apologize for.
"In other words, if you're poor and your one enjoyment is a ridiculously expensive cup of coffee, you'd better put on your Sunday best..."
A bit of an overgeneralization on a mistake, wouldn't you say?
@Rajio
Sit 20 minutes? What kind of joke is that? If I'm paying 4 dollars for a coffee, they can go to hell if they're only allowing me to sit for 20 minutes to let it cool and drink it.
That being said, you're at least right in the fact that a business should want to look out for paying customers. However, I'm sure that in this case she was paying, as the lady had a coffee in her hands that wasn't even cooled off yet.
Lastly, I'm sure we're all aware that most businesses can refuse patrons due to any non-racist reason, including gender and sexuality. However, it's nice to see a business treat people like human beings once in a while instead of walking wallets.
Ok, I'm with the people that are reminding me that $10 dollars a month won't break the bank, but that's still more than a recently homed person should be spending.
I don't think, she should have been kicked out if she truly did just purchase the coffee (I know she said she did, but that doesn't really mean it).
If there was no purchase then....out you go.
If you're homeless and didn't buy anything, you don't have any business hanging around in the starbucks. They have a right to ask you to leave. If you're a paying customer, like the person in the article, and they provide tables and chairs, you're allowed to sit and drink your coffee... that's why starbucks pays for the extra real-estate, and furniture. They made a mistake with her, but it didn't say if the guy she sat next to had bought anything or not, or if the homeless people that were being kicked out were buying anything or not.
Matter of fact, it shouldn't make a bit of difference if you're homeless or not, the only thing that should matter is whether you're a customer or a loiterer. She obviously had a cup of coffee, so she was definitely a customer, and they made a huge mistake asking her to leave. It's discrimination to single out homeless people over the other non-paying people in starbucks like those who sit and play solitaire while they nurse a small icewater all day, and if it's not illegal it should be.
has the consumerist given away a bunch of logins to the local middle school or what? seems as if the intelligence quotient has dropped quite a bit here...
I used to manage a coffee shop (not a Starbucks, but yeah..) and although this was rarely an issue at my location, I did help out at other stores where it was.
As long as someone came in, ordered & paid, and was behaving reasonably, they were welcome to spend their money with us and sit in a comfortable seat. This included homeless people & panhandlers. I don't see any reason whatsoever why a -paying customer- can't enjoy a seat and a cup of coffee, regardless of what other customers may think of them, personally.
As to "being stinky" and "taking up a table" -- hell, lots of upper-middle class paying customers took up a table for hours using their laptops and reading their papers & socializing. Sometimes, they even wore too much perfume or smelled like cigarette smoke. It's not your job to judge people on a personal basis, or to try to determine if they "should" be buying coffee or not -- it's your job to make & serve coffee, and collect money for the business. And it's in your job description to be courteous.
It's pretty easy to sit at your keyboard reading hip blogs and make all kinds of judgements and decisions about other people's money & lives... but is anyone else smelling a little elitism and entitlement in the comment section?
Gonna have to agree with ikes. Could just be a slow day pulling the trolls out of the woodwork though.
Listen, when I am at a starbucks (and I usually am, drinking my coffee daily) and strike up conversation with someone who is not drinking coffee, then it is a BAD IDEA to kick us out. Unless either of us was doing something disruptive. The owner has a right to do so, but it is still a bad idea.
The point I am making is, "when did simply being homeless become disruptive?" Is it too "real" for the soccer mom who will have to explain to her kids that some people don't have homes? Some people don't have nice clothes or bathe every day. They are called Germans. I keed, I keed. Try the veal, folks.
The problem that we, as a society, need to fight against is being so complacent in our own little world that the mere sight of someone from the outside is disruptive. Talk to the homeless, you might learn something (like are they homeless cuz of psychotic problems, religion problems, or temporary money problems).
@englishmajormoney: just because they don't always ask everyone to leave doesnm't mean that by extension everyone always has the right to loitre. if they want you to leave; you leave. its a private property and a business. you're not paying for the pleasure to sit there. you're paying for your coffee. we'll you have your coffee. consider yourself lucky they let you sit around at all.
they provide an area to relax but that doesn't mean they have to let you relax there. Starbucks in this case didn't really do anythign wrong; it doesn't matter who this lady is or what shes like.
ok, maybe its not 'nice' that they asked her to leave, but if its niceness you're looking for, simply take your business elsewhere like any other good consumer.
At the end of the day, she got what she paid for so no harm, no foul and if shes still unhappy then she should pay for it somewhere else instead.
Eh, I wouldn't say there's any out and out trolling, just the usual "spirited" debate one sees whenever the ol' The-homeless-can-do-whatever-they-want/No-they-can't disagreement plays out on the internet.
I'd be bent if I was that woman, though. Surprised there's no lawsuit (uh, yet?), but good for her.
I am scared of the homeless! I also like coffee!
It was wrong of them to kick her out, yes, but Starbucks is, considered, in a sense, private property.
It's like what happened to the library in California....
@Jess A.:
I agree with everything you said. But still if a store wants to kick you out because your shoelaces are untied, or whatever they feel like, they should be allowed to.
Don't spend money there and tell everyone else not to as well. If they still make money the store wins if not you do.
The store was right, the customer is right. Let's see who wins.
Not my personal opinion, but...
I imagine this may be a bit like AirTran kicking the unruly toddler and her family off the plane -- some people will be outraged and some will be grateful.
I agree with one of the above commenters that if I bought coffee at Starbucks every day, I might become homeless pretty quickly.
I agree that a privately owned business has a right to kick out whoever they feel like kicking out. I think that what bugs me about this situation (and some of the Consumerist commenter responses) is this notion that some people are not worthy of spending their money at Starbucks because of some perceived difference.
Add to this the fact that Starbucks talks a good talk about being community oriented, and even has in their corporate mission statement a "guiding principle" about treating people with respect and dignity, and it just seems kind of, you know, wrong for floor staff to be deciding on the spot who gets to stay and who has to leave.
Hell, if this keeps up Starbucks bathrooms may actually be usable in the near future.