Was This 17-Year-Old Manager Wrong to Tell an Employee the Job Isn’t a Good Fit?

A 17-year-old shift manager, already overwhelmed by the holiday rush at her family-run café, found herself in a situation far beyond her training.

A new autistic employee, who struggles with sensory overload, began requesting accommodations that the busy, loud environment simply couldn’t provide. The manager initially offered the office as a quiet retreat, but when the employee started complaining that she could still hear noise, the teen manager snapped.

Her harsh response, telling the employee she should just quit, sparked a massive debate about workplace accommodations, management training, and who is truly at fault.

Now, read the full story:

This situation is a perfect storm of bad management, poor job fit, and a complete lack of support for a teenage shift manager.

The 17-year-old manager was put in an impossible position: she was tasked with managing a complex employee situation, one that requires HR expertise and legal knowledge, without any training.

While the manager’s response was harsh and unprofessional, her core frustration is understandable. She needs an employee who can perform during the busiest hours, and the new hire is spending half her shift in the back office.

The real villains here are the owners of the family café who promoted a minor without providing the necessary guidance for handling disability accommodations.

The central conflict here revolves around “reasonable accommodation” under disability law. While the OP notes the café is family-run and may not be subject to the ADA (which applies to businesses with 15 or more employees), the moral and managerial obligation remains.

The manager’s initial offer of the office was an attempt at accommodation. However, the employee’s subsequent complaints, that she could still hear noise, demonstrated that the job itself might be fundamentally incompatible with her needs.

As Dr. Stephen Shore, an autistic professor of special education, often stresses, the goal of accommodation is to help a person succeed, not to fundamentally alter the nature of the job. A busy café cannot simply become quiet.

A 2023 report by Forbes Advisor found that only 10% of managers feel they have received adequate training to handle complex employee situations. This lack of preparation leads to reactive, emotional responses, exactly like the one the 17-year-old manager displayed. She was left to sink or swim, and she chose to snap.

The manager’s statement that the employee should quit because the job is a poor fit is, in a professional context, often the correct conclusion, even if the delivery was terrible. The employee signed up for a loud, high-traffic job, and no further “reasonable” accommodation could change that reality.

Check out how the community responded:

Many Redditors focused on the severity of the manager’s language, arguing that her harshness made her the jerk.

A large counter-argument emerged, stating that the manager is simply a kid who was set up to fail by the adult owners, making the owners the true villains.

A third group argued ESH (Everyone Sucks Here), noting that while the manager was harsh, the employee chose a job that was clearly unsuitable.

Finally, some offered constructive advice on how the manager could have handled the situation more professionally.

The manager was harsh, but she was also a kid put in an adult role without the necessary tools. The employee needs a quieter job, and the manager needs serious training.

The real question is: Why did the café owners allow a 17-year-old to handle a complex disability accommodation issue alone?

Do you think the manager was right to suggest the employee quit, even if her delivery was wrong?