{"id":4133,"date":"2025-02-12T17:08:58","date_gmt":"2025-02-12T17:08:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/missouri-sues-starbucks-over-dei-policies-justia-news-february-12-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-02-12T17:08:58","modified_gmt":"2025-02-12T17:08:58","slug":"missouri-sues-starbucks-over-dei-policies-justia-news-february-12-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/missouri-sues-starbucks-over-dei-policies-justia-news-february-12-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Missouri Sues Starbucks Over DEI Policies \u2014 Justia News \u2014 February 12, 2025"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey filed a lawsuit against Starbucks on Tuesday, February 11, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, alleging that Starbucks uses diversity, equity, and inclusion policies to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, and sexual orientation.<\/p>\n

In October 2020, Starbucks laid forth a six-step plan to advance racial and social equity. Part of this plan includes \u201cadvanc[ing] equity in hiring and promotions by developing frameworks, tools, and processes to ensure that diversity goals are woven into business decisions; identifying new programs and initiatives to bolster diversity within the company; and measuring the impact of diversity strategies and programs.\u201d In 2021, Starbucks set \u201cInclusion and Diversity goals based on retention rates and progress towards achieving [Black, Indigenous, and People of Color<\/span>] representation.\u201d These goals set forth specific percentages of BIPOC representation and women in specific roles. In 2023, Starbucks changed the phrasing of its language to change the \u201cgoals\u201d to \u201caspirational\u201d efforts.<\/p>\n

The complaint claims that Starbucks violates federal and state laws because it \u201cties compensation to racial and sex based quotas, discriminates on the basis of race and sex in training and advancement opportunities, and discriminates on the basis of race and sex with respect to its board membership.\u201d The complaint argues that the goals set forth by Starbucks are \u201cquotas based on unlawful bases.\u201d The complaint further alleges that Starbucks ties executive pay to the company\u2019s achievement of its aspirational efforts. \u201cExecutives who meet the quota get a carrot: an increased bonus. Executives who do not are hit with the stick: a decreased bonus, if one is even awarded.\u201d<\/p>\n

The complaint points out that as of September 28, 2024, \u201cStarbucks\u2019 U.S. workforce was 70.9% women and 28.4% men. In other words, since 2020, Starbuck[s\u2019 workforce] has become more female and less white.\u201d The Missouri Attorney General argues that by hiring workers \u201cbased on at least one of Starbucks\u2019 preferred immutable characteristics rather than an evaluation of an applicant\u2019s merit and qualifications,\u201d the hiring pool is skewed \u201ctowards people who are less qualified to perform their work, increasing costs for Missouri\u2019s consumers.\u201d Attorney General Bailey claims that \u201cMissouri\u2019s consumers are required to pay higher prices and wait longer for goods and services that could be provided for less had Starbucks employed the most qualified workers, regardless of their race, color, sex, or national origin.\u201d<\/p>\n

The complaint claims causes of action for: (1) unlawful hiring, firing, and discriminatory practices under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 2000e-2(a)(1); (2) unlawful hiring, firing, and discriminatory practices under Mo. Rev. Stat \u00a7<\/span>\u00a7<\/span> 213.055.1(1)(a), 213.126.1; (3) unlawful attempted or actual aiding, abetting, compelling, or coercion under Mo. Rev. Stat. \u00a7<\/span> 213.070.1(1); (4) unlawful training programs under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7<\/span> 2000e-2(d); (5) unlawful training programs under Mo. Rev. Stat. \u00a7<\/span>\u00a7<\/span> 213.055.1(2), 213.126.1; (6) unlawful limiting, segregation, or classification under 42. U.S.C. \u00a7<\/span> 2000e-2(a)(2); (7) unlawful limiting, segregation, or classification under Mo. Rev. Stat. \u00a7<\/span>\u00a7<\/span> 213.055.1(1)(b) and 213.126.1; (8) unlawful printing or circulation under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7<\/span> 2000e-3(b); (9) unlawful printing or circulation under Mo. Rev. Stat. \u00a7<\/span>\u00a7<\/span> 213.055.1(3) and 213.126.1; and (10) discriminatory contracting impairment under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7<\/span> 1981.<\/p>\n

Additional Reading<\/strong><\/p>\n

Starbucks sued by Missouri over DEI, race and gender bias<\/a>, Yahoo! Finance<\/em> (February 11, 2025)<\/p>\n

State of Missouri v. Starbucks Corp.<\/a><\/em> (Case No. 4:2025cv00165)<\/p>\n

Complaint in State of Missouri v. Starbucks Corp.<\/em><\/p>\n

Photo Credit: <\/strong>Cloudy Design \/ Shutterstock.com<\/p>\n<\/div>\n