Starbucks worker couldn't link migraine condition to inability to work while masked
A coffee shop’s requirement for staff to wear masks did not discriminate against a worker who claimed her migraine condition was aggravated by masks, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal has ruled.
The worker was a part-time barista at a Starbucks coffee shop in Alberta. Her job involved interacting closely with the public by taking food and beverage orders, collecting payment, and serving food and beverages to customers.
In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic was declared and businesses and schools were shut down with social distancing and masking requirements introduced by governments. In response, Starbucks implemented a requirement for employees to wear face masks.
Starbucks had a COVID-19 response team that consulted with food safety, environmental health, emergency response, and microbiologist experts along with medical consultants. In addition to the mask requirement for employees, the company introduced other measures that overlapped, so if any of the safety measures had a hole, another would fill it. Measures included plexiglass dividers in stores, sick policies and screening, and other personal protective equipment. Safety measures were adjusted as new scientific discoveries regarding COVID-19 and vaccines became available.
Accommodation request
However, the worker requested an accommodation of restricted duties where she wouldn’t have to wear a mask or take paid leave, as she said that she suffered from migraine headaches that were exacerbated by wearing a mask.
The worker said that her migraine condition had been diagnosed at a young age and her migraines caused vision impairment, numbness, and stroke-like symptoms. She had to take strong medicine or other medical intervention to become functional again after suffering from one.
The worker tried wearing different masks, but they made her feel dizzy and lightheaded with her vision narrowing, forcing her to go into the back room at the coffee shop and sit down. She said she experienced a migraine about once a week after the masking policy was introduced, compared to six per year before the pandemic.
The worker obtained doctor’s note stating that she was unable to work due to illness or injury from May 8 to July 24, 2020. She also provided a doctor’s note from years earlier about receiving a massage to alleviate migraine symptoms.
Temporary paid leave
Starbucks denied the worker’s request for modified duties but placed her on leave receiving “catastrophe pay” that was meant to provide temporary financial support to employees who could not attend work or felt unsafe doing so during the pandemic. However, eligibility for the pay was adjusted and the worker was no longer eligible.
The worker tried to return to work in the summer and fall of 2020, but she struggled with wearing a mask. She asked about working without a mask or receiving paid medical leave, but Starbucks indicated that she would need to provide medical information to support a paid leave.
The worker’s family doctor had retired, so she asked another doctor for a medical exemption for masks. However, the doctor refused and recommended she see a migraine specialist, but the worker didn’t follow up.
The worker sought out a doctor in British Columbia who was known to be willing to provide mask exemption notes. The BC doctor didn’t examine her but collected her self-reported medical information and wrote a note exempting her from wearing a face covering due to her medical condition on Nov. 22. He wrote a second note saying essentially the same thing on June 7, 2021.
In March 2022, the doctor’s license was suspended for allegations of signing vaccine and mask exemption forms that he knew included false statements and failed to consider objective medical evidence.
Physical disability
Starbucks rejected the worker’s request for accommodation and the doctor’s notes, and it placed her on a temporary leave without pay. The worker made an application alleging discrimination based on physical disability.
The tribunal noted that the test for establishing a prima facie case of discrimination required three elements – a characteristic protected from discrimination, an adverse impact on the worker, and the protected characteristic must be a factor in the adverse impact.
The tribunal was satisfied that the worker suffered from a physical disability given her reports on her condition and her initial doctor’s note. It also found that the worker suffered an adverse impact when she wasn’t permitted to work at the coffee shop. Although she had another full-time job, the tribunal accepted the worker’s testimony that the additional money she earned at Starbucks was critical to her family and her inability to work there negatively affected her psychosocial well-being.
However, the tribunal found that the worker didn’t provide sufficient medical evidence linking her disability to the adverse impact of being unable to work. The notes from the doctor whose license was suspended weren’t credible and the worker didn’t seek out a migraine specialist as recommended by her doctor, the tribunal said, adding that the worker didn’t provide any medical records or information supporting her “personal opinion that her migraines were aggravated by wearing a mask.”
The tribunal noted that the worker indicated that stress was a trigger for migraines and the pandemic was a stressful time, raising doubt about the source of the increased migraines.
The tribunal determined that the worker did not establish that her disability was a factor in her inability to work and, as a result, there was no proven discrimination. The worker’s application was dismissed. See Tartal v. Starbucks Coffee Canada Inc., 2024 AHRC 14.
