You are on page 1of 7

STARBUCKS HAS A HISTORY OF VIOLATING RIGHTS OF ITS

EMPLOYEES
Starbucks Has Paid $46 Million In Class Action Settlements To Employees

STARBUCKS WAS FORCED TO PAY $23,500,000 IN SETTLEMENT OVER TIP


SHARING POLICY
Starbucks Was Sued For Including Shift Supervisors In Tip Pools

2008: Class Action Lawsuit Was Filed In Massachusetts Against Starbucks’ Policy Of Distributing Tips To Shift
Supervisors. According to the second amended complaint in Matamoros v. Starbucks Corporation, “This is a class action
challenging Starbucks Corporation’s policy of distributing to shift supervisors proceeds of tips left by customers. This practice
violates Massachusetts law. The above-named plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated
employees, namely all individuals who have worked as baristas at a Starbucks store in Massachusetts in the last six years.”
[Second Amended Complaint – United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, 9/19/08]

Plaintiffs Alleged That Starbucks Policy Of Including Shift Supervisors In Tip Pool Violated Massachusetts Labor
Law. According to the second amended complaint in Matamoros v. Starbucks Corporation, “Plaintiffs allege that Starbucks’
policy of including shift supervisors in its tip pool violates the Massachusetts Tips Law, Mass. Gen. L. c. 149 § 152A, and also
renders the company liable under Massachusetts common law for breach of implied contract and interference with
advantageous relations, as well as under the common law doctrine of quantum meruit/unjust enrichment. In this action, the
named plaintiffs seek restitution for themselves and all other similarly situated employees who did not receive all tips to which
they are entitled to have received under the law.” [Second Amended Complaint – United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts, 9/19/08]

Case Was Settled For $23,500,000

2013: Matamoros v. Starbucks Was Settled With A Related Case, Black v. Starbucks Corporation. According to an
Order Approving Settlement, “Having reviewed and considered the parties’ proposed settlement agreement in the above-
captioned case, together with the related case of Black v. Starbucks Corporation, C.A. No. 12-10961, and having held a hearing
on the proposed settlement on August 16, 2013, and having received no objections to the settlement after sufficient
distribution of notice to class members, the Court hereby approves the settlement agreement because it is fair, reasonable, and
adequate, and hereby dismisses this action, as well as Black v. Starbucks Corporation, C.a. No. 12-10961, with prejudice.”
[Second Amended Complaint – United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, 9/19/08]

Proposed Settlement In Matamoros And Black Cases Was $23,500,000. According to a Notice of Proposed Class Action
settlement, “This notice is to inform you of a proposed class action settlement in the cases of Matamoros v. Starbucks Corp.,
C.A. No. 08-CV-10772, and Black v. Starbucks Corp., C.A. No. 12-CV-10961, both pending in federal court in Massachusetts.
The proposed settlement class includes all individuals who have worked as baristas at any Starbucks store in Massachusetts
between March 25, 2005, and January 7, 2013. The settlement is conditioned upon court approval. […] The total amount of
the proposed settlement is $23,500,000. One-third of the total settlement will be used to pay attorneys’ fees and costs incurred
by the Plaintiffs’ attorneys for bringing and prosecuting the lawsuit. In addition, the three lead plaintiffs who initiated the
lawsuit will receive $25,000 each, and two additional plaintiffs who joined the litigation at a later point and assisted in the
recovery for the class will receive $15,000 each. The remainder of the settlement fund will be distributed to baristas who
worked in Massachusetts between March 25, 2005, and January 7, 2013.” [Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement –
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, 4/15/13]

STARBUCKS WAS FORCED TO PAY $18 MILLION FOR VIOLATING CALIFORNIA


OVERTIME LAW
June 2001: Class Action Suit Was Filed In California Superior Court (For Alameda County) Claiming Overtime
Violations. According to a class action lawsuit filed in California Superior Court for the County of Alameda, “Although
Plaintiff regularly worked more than eight hours per day and forty hours per week for Defendant, Defendant did not pay
overtime compensation in the amount of one and a half time their hourly rate to Plaintiff for the hours worked in excess of
eight per day or forty per week.” [Complaint – Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda, 6/20/01]

Case Was Moved To Federal Court Because It Involved An Interstate Dispute. According to the Notice of Removal
filed in U.S. District Court, “Defendant’s Notice of Removal is timely because it is filed within thirty days of service and
Defendant’s receipt of the complaint. This Court enjoys subject matter jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. 1332 because this civil
action is between citizens of different states. Removal of this action to this Court is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1441 (a).” [Notice
of Removal – United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 7/27/01]

Starbucks Ultimately Settled For $18 Million

April 2002: Starbucks Reached Settlement In Carr And A Related Class Action Lawsuit (Shields v. Starbucks) For
$18 Million. According to a Starbucks press release, “Starbucks Corporation (Nasdaq:SBUX) announced today that it has
reached an agreement to settle two California class action lawsuits filed in 2001. The lawsuits, entitled Carr v. Starbucks
Corporation and Shields v. Starbucks Corp., challenged the status of Starbucks California store managers and assistant store
managers as exempt employees under California wage and hour laws. While Starbucks denies all liability in these cases, the
company has agreed to the settlement in order to resolve all of the plaintiffs' claims without engaging in protracted litigation.
The settlement fully resolves all claims brought by the plaintiffs in these California lawsuits. According to the settlement,
Starbucks will pay up to $18 million in claims to eligible class members, attorneys' fees and costs, and costs to a third-party
claims administrator, as well applicable employer payroll taxes.” [Starbucks via Business Wire, 4/19/02]

STARBUCKS WAS FORCED TO PAY $3 MILLION FOR DENYING MEAL BREAKS


Starbucks Paid $3 Million Settlement For Denying Meal Breaks

November 2013: Starbucks Reached $3 Million Settlement In Class Action Lawsuit Summer York v. Starbucks et al
Over Denial Of Meal Breaks And Producing Improper Wage Statements. According to a press release from the law firm
Capstone Law APC, “After nearly five years of arduous litigation, Capstone Law APC has obtained final approval of a $3.0
million class settlement for current and former Starbucks employees who were allegedly subjected to various wage violations,
including denial of meal breaks and receiving improper wage statements. The case is Summer York et al. v. Starbucks Corp.”
[Capstone Law APC via PRWeb, 11/8/13]

Case Was Filed in 2008 And As A Result, Starbucks Agreed To Overhaul Its Meal And Rest Break Policies.
According to a press release from the law firm Capstone Law APC, “On Monday, October 28th, the Hon. Judge Gary Feess
issued an order granting Capstone's motions for approval of the settlement. In addition, Judge Feess granted in full Capstone
Law's request for fees and costs in the amount of $1.9 million. The initial complaint was filed in 2008, and plaintiffs' counsel
prevailed despite sweeping changes in the law and in class action jurisprudence since that time. […] In addition to monetary
relief, Starbucks agreed to modify its meal and rest break policies in order to allow employees to take uninterrupted breaks as
required by law. These changes ‘will inure to the benefit of thousands of current and future Starbucks employees,’ Theriault
remarked.” [Capstone Law APC via PRWeb, 11/8/13]

STARBUCKS WAS SUCCESSFULLY SUED FOR $1.6 MILLION FOR DENYING


STORE MANAGERS OVERTIME COMPENSATION
September 2009: Starbucks Store Manager Filed Class Action Lawsuit Claiming Starbucks Had Failed To
Adequately Compensate For Overtime. According to the complaint filed in Hernandez v. Starbucks Coffee Company,
“Plaintiff LETTY HERNANDEZ is a former employee of Defendant STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANY, a foreign
corporation, d/b/a STARBUCKS CORPORATION (hereinafter referred to as “STARBUCKS”), and bring this action on
behalf of herself and all other current and former employees of Defendant similarly situated to her, on a nationwide basis, for
compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. (hereinafter referred
to as “the FLSA”). […] This action is brought to recover from Defendant unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, as well as for declaratory and injunctive relief, under the provisions of the FLSA, 29
U.S.C. § 201, et seq., and specifically under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).” [Amended Complaint and Demand For Jury Trial – United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, 9/18/09]

Suit Alleged Starbucks Illegally Exempted Store Managers From Overtime Compensation. According to the
complaint filed in Hernandez v. Starbucks Coffee Company, “At all times pertinent to this Complaint, Defendant failed to
comply with 29 U.S.C. § 201-19 in that Plaintiff and those current and former employees similarly situated to Plaintiff, while
employed by Defendant under the title and auspices of ‘store manager’, and classified as exempt for purposes of overtime
compensation eligibility, performed hours of service for Defendant in excess of forty (40) during one or more workweeks, for
which Defendant failed to properly pay additional overtime premiums. In fact, Starbucks inappropriately and improperly
classifies its store managers as exempt employees. In the course of her employment with the Defendant, Plaintiff, and other
current and former employees similarly situated to her, worked the number of hours required of them, many times in excess of
forty (40) per work week, but were not properly paid overtime.” [Amended Complaint and Demand For Jury Trial – United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, 9/18/09]

Starbucks Settled For $1.6 Million

Starbucks Agreed To $613,618 Settlement Fund And To Pay Plaintiffs $950,000 In Attorney’s Fees And Costs
($1,563,618 Settlement). According to the Settlement Agreement, “In Consideration for plaintiffs’ agreement to finally and
fully resolve, settle, release and discharge all claims for unpaid overtime wages udner the Fair Labor Stands Act, 29 U.S.C. 201,
et seq. and any other agreements made by plaintiffs herein, defendant agrees to pay plaintiffs a $613,618 settlement fund (‘the
settlement fund’) to be administered and distributed […] Defendant agrees to pay platiniffs’ counsel as full and complete
compensation for attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses the amount of $950,000, of which $900,000 represents plaintiffs’ counsel
reasonable attorney’s fees and $50,000 represents plaintiffs’ counsel’s reasonably incurred costs and expenses.” [Settlement
Agreement – Hernandez v. Starbucks Corp., United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, 8/12/11]

Starbucks Has Paid Over $50,000 In OSHA Violations


2017: PAID $31,884 TO SETTLE VIOLATIONS IN MIAMI GARDENS, FLORIDA
Starbucks Incurred $31,884 In Penalties Stemming From A May 2017 OSHA Inspection In Miami Gardens.
According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Starbucks incurred $31,884 in penalties stemming
from a May 2017 inspection at a store in Miami Gardens, Florida. [OSHA, Viewed 2/1/19]

 Standards Cited: Design And Constructions Requirements For Exit Routes, General Requirements, And
Hazard Communication. According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Starbucks was
cited for “Design and constructions requirements for exit routes, general requirements, and hazard communication.
[OSHA Violation Items, Viewed 2/1/19]

2016: PAID $12,000 TO SETTLE VIOLATIONS IN SEATTLE


Starbucks Incurred $12,000 In Penalties Stemming From A September 2016 Inspection In Seattle. According to the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Starbucks incurred $12,000 in penalties stemming from a September
2016 inspection in Seattle, Washington. [OSHA, Viewed 2/1/19]

 Violated Rules On Eight Different OSHA Standards. According to the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), Starbucks was cited for violating rules on nine different OSHA standards. [OSHA Violation
Items, Viewed 2/1/19]

2015: PAID $6,500 TO SETTLE VIOLATIONS IN VICTOR, NEW YORK


Starbucks Incurred $6,500 In Penalties Stemming From A February 2015 Inspection In Victor, New York. According
to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Starbucks incurred $6,500 in penalties stemming from a
February 2015 inspection in Victor, New York. [OSHA, Viewed 2/1/19]

 Standards Cited: Hazard Communication, Eye and Face Protection. According to the Occuprational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA), Starbucks was cited for “Eye and face protection” and “hazard communication.”
[OSHA Violation Items, Viewed 2/1/19]

Starbucks Discriminated Against Pro Union Job-Seekers


2005: STARBUCKS PAID $165,000 TO SETTLE NLRB COMPLAINT THAT IT HAD
DISCRIMINATED AGAINST PRO-UNION JOB APPLICANTS
2005: Starbucks Paid $165,000 To Settle An NLRB Complaint That It Had Screened Job Applicants With Union
Sympathies. According to the Seattle Times, “Last year, Starbucks paid nearly $2,000 to settle an IWW complaint with the
NLRB, and in 2005 it paid $165,000 to settle charges that it had screened against job applicants with possible union
sympathies and had fired an employee for refusing to continue such screening at its Kent roasting plant. In both cases, the
company admitted no wrongdoing.” [Seattle Times, 10/4/07]

Starbucks Paid Over $150,000 Due To Discriminating Against Job Applicants


With Disabilities
2010: STARBUCKS PAID $80,000 EEOC SETTLEMENT AFTER IT DISCRIMINATED
AGAINST AN ARKANSAS JOB APPLICANT WITH MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS
2010: Starbucks Paid $80,000 To Settle Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Lawsuit Claiming It Had
Failed To Hire An Arkansas Applicant With Multiple Sclerosis. According to a press release from the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), “A Starbucks store in Russellville, Ark., will pay $80,000 to settle a disability
discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Com-mis-sion (EEOC), the agency announced
today. The EEOC’s suit, (Civil Action No. 4:09-CV-0715, filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, at
Little Rock), charged that Starbucks failed to hire Chuck Hannay because of his multiple sclerosis. According to the EEOC,
Hannay applied for one of six open barista positions but was never contacted for an interview. EEOC alleged that individuals
with less experience and availability were hired instead of Hannay. Such conduct violates the Americans With Disabilities Act
(ADA), which prohibits employment discrimination based on a person’s disability.” [Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, 6/15/10]

2011: STARBUCKS PAID $75,000 FINE FOR DISCRIMINATING AGAINST A TEXAS


JOB APPLICANT WITH DWARFISM
2011: Starbucks Paid A $75,000 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Settlement After It Had Discriminated
Against A Texas Job Applicant With Dwarfism. According to a press release from the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, “Starbucks Coffee Company has agreed to pay $75,000 and provide other significant relief to settle a disability
discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced
today. The EEOC had charged Starbucks Coffee Company with unlawfully denying a reasonable accommodation to a barista
with dwarfism at one of its El Paso stores and firing her because of her disability. According to the EEOC’s suit, Elsa Sallard,
whose stature is small due to dwarfism, was denied an opportunity to work for the world’s largest coffeehouse chain. The job
description for the barista position stated that no prior experience was required. During the orientation training, Sallard
suggested that she could use a stool or small stepladder to more easily perform some of the tasks of preparing orders and
serving customers. The manager at the El Paso Starbucks location disregarded Sallard’s request, the EEOC said. On the same
day that Sallard requested the accommodation, Starbucks terminated her employment, claiming that she would pose a
“danger” to customers and employees.” [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 8/18/11]
STARBUCKS VIOLATED CONSUMER SAFETY AND
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS
Starbucks Paid A $3.75 Million Fine
STARBUCKS-OWNED TEAVANA PAID A $3.75 MILLION PENALTY TO THE
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION (CPSC)
June 2016: Teavana Paid A $3.75 Million Civil Penalty To The Federal Government To Settle Charges That It Failed
To Report Defects Associated With Its Tea Tumblers. According to a press release from the Consumer Product Safety
Commission, “The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced today that Teavana, formerly of Atlanta,
Ga., has agreed to pay a $3.75 million civil penalty to the federal government. The penalty settles charges that Teavana
knowingly failed to report to CPSC, as required by federal law, that the tumblers contained a defect that could create a
substantial product hazard or that the tumblers created an unreasonable risk of serious injury. After receiving numerous
complaints about the tea tumblers unexpectedly exploding, shattering or breaking during normal use, including six reports of
injuries to consumers who suffered cuts to their fingers or legs by broken glass or burns from hot liquid, Teavana failed to
immediately report the matter to CPSC. In addition to paying the $3.75 million civil penalty, Teavana has agreed to comply
with and maintain the compliance program of its parent company that is designed to ensure compliance with the Consumer
Product Safety Act (CPSA) and regulations enforced by the Commission. Teavana has also agreed to comply with and
maintain a system of internal controls and procedures to ensure Teavana discloses information to the Commission in
accordance with applicable law.” [Consumer Product Safety Commission, 6/1/16]

 Starbucks Bought Teavana For $620 Million In 2012. According to Reuters, “Starbucks Corp (SBUX.O) said on
Wednesday it plans to buy tea store chain Teavana Holdings Inc TEA.N for $620 million, aiming to replicate the
success it has had with its namesake coffee shops. Teavana has about 300 shopping mall stores that sell loose-leaf,
exotic teas. In addition to opening stand-alone Teavana stores in the United States and abroad, Starbucks will add tea
bars that serve prepared drinks in existing Teavana stores, Starbucks Chief Executive Howard Schultz told Reuters.”
[Reuters, 11/14/12]

Teavana’s Tea Tumblers Were Recalled In 2013. According to a press release from the Consumer Product Safety
Commission, “The tumblers were recalled in May 2013, after Teavana had imported about 445,000 tumblers. The tumblers
were sold at Teavana stores and online at Teavana.com from August 2007 through May 2013, for about $15 to $33 for the
individual tumblers; about $40 for the Flourish Iced Tea Glasses Sets; and about $80 to $100 for the Imperial Blooming
Collection Tea Sets.” [Consumer Product Safety Commission, 6/1/16]

Starbucks Faced Over $20,000 In Environmental Fines


2004: STARBUCKS FACILITY IN PENNSYLVANIA INCURRED $10,000 EPA
VIOLATION
August 2004: A Starbucks Coffee Co/York Roasting Plant In York, Pennsylvania Incurred $10,000 In EPA
Violations. According to an EPA Civil Enforcement Case Report, a Starbucks Coffee Co/York Roasting plant in York,
Pennsylvania was assessed a $10,000 penalty on August 30, 2004. [EPA Civil Enforcement Case Report
PA000A0000E00000000168766, Viewed 2/1/19]

2009: STARBUCKS FACILITY IN KENT, WASHINGTON INCURRED OVER $10,000


IN EPA VIOLATION
July 2009: A Starbucks Facility In Kent, Washington Incurred A $5,321 EPA Violation. According to an EPA Civil
Enforcement Case Report, a Starbucks Coffee Co. facility in Kent, Washington incurred a $5,321 violation on July 17, 2009.
[EPA Civil Enforcement Case Report WAPSCA0000530331078300041, Viewed 2/1/19]

July 2009: The Starbucks Facility In Kent, Washington Incurred Another Penalty On The Same Day For $5,000.
According an EPA Civil Enforcement Case Report, a Starbucks Coffee Co. facility in Kent, Washington incurred a $5,000
penalty on July 17, 2009. [EPA Civil Enforcement Case Report WAPSCA0000530331078300040, Viewed 2/1/19]