Is Starbucks ethical?

This includes Starbucks, which bars matching grants to “religious organizations benefiting only those with like beliefs,” “political organizations,” and “organizations listed on the Southern Poverty Law Center.”(6) Further, the 2023 Freedom at Work survey found that 60% of employees feared employer reprisal for expressing religious or political views at work, and 54% said they feared the same for sharing these views even on private social media accounts.(7) Starbucks can partially address this shortcoming by allowing employees to direct matching gifts to religious charities.

If that wasn’t enough, Starbucks’ CEO gets paid more than 6,666 times the median worker, a ratio higher than any other S&P500 company.

A federal jury this week found that Starbucks discriminated against a white manager who was fired amid an uproar over the company's treatment of Black customers at a store in Philadelphia five years ago.

Starbucks discrimination lawsuit awarded white employee $25 million: Legal experts weigh in - ABC News

Greenberg alleged "well-documented instances" for years in the retailer's supply chain of "slavery-like conditions," child labor, human trafficking and other exploitative working conditions on farms and co-ops where Starbucks sources its coffee and tea.

The lawsuit, filed by the National Consumers League in a Washington, DC court on Wednesday, alleges that Starbucks misrepresents to consumers that it is "committed to 100% ethical coffee sourcing" and to "100% ethically sourced tea" even as it continues to source coffee beans and tea leaves from cooperatives and farms that "have committed documented, severe human rights and labor abuses, including the use of child labor and forced labor as well as rampant and egregious sexual harassment and assault."

Starbucks is being sued by a consumer advocacy group alleging that the global coffee chain falsely and deceptively advertises the "committed to 100% ethical sourcing" claim on its coffee and tea products.

Starbucks sued for alleged deceptive marketing of its ‘100% ethically’ sourced coffee

Greenberg alleged "well-documented instances" for years in the retailer's supply chain of "slavery-like conditions," child labor, human trafficking and other exploitative working conditions on farms and co-ops where Starbucks sources its coffee and tea.

The lawsuit, filed by the National Consumers League in a Washington, D.C. court on Wednesday, alleges that Starbucks misrepresents to consumers that it is "committed to 100% ethical coffee sourcing" and to "100% ethically sourced tea" even as it continues to source coffee beans and tea leaves from cooperatives and farms that "have committed documented, severe human rights and labor abuses, including the use of child labor and forced labor as well as rampant and egregious sexual harassment and assault."

Starbucks accused of deceptively marketing ‘100% ethically’ sourced coffee | Business | abc12.com

National Consumers League sued Starbucks before the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, accusing the coffee company of false advertising, alleging that it obtains tea and coffee from suppliers implicated in human rights abuses.

Starbucks' response to false advertising lawsuit - Business and Human Rights Centre

On 24 April 2025, eight Brazilian workers filed a civil lawsuit against Starbucks before a federal court in Washington D.C., United States, with the support of International Rights Advocates (IRA), alleging they were subjected to trafficking and forced labour by a supplier of the company.

USA: Starbucks sued over alleged forced labour in Brazilian supply chain - Business and Human Rights Centre

The complaint references investigations by labor inspectors, journalists, and nonprofit organizations that recorded unsafe conditions, wage theft, child labor, and forced labor at farms approved under Starbucks' C.A.F.E.

Starbucks sued for allegedly using coffee from farms with rights abuses

The lawsuit cites reporting about human rights and labor abuses on specific coffee and tea farms in Guatemala, Kenya and Brazil, and alleges that Starbucks has continued to purchase from these suppliers in spite of the documented violations.

Greenberg alleged “well-documented instances” for years in the retailer’s supply chain of “slavery-like conditions,” child labor, human trafficking and other exploitative working conditions on farms and co-ops where Starbucks sources its coffee and tea.

The lawsuit, filed by the National Consumers League in a Washington, DC court on Wednesday, alleges that Starbucks misrepresents to consumers that it is “committed to 100% ethical coffee sourcing” and to “100% ethically sourced tea” even as it continues to source coffee beans and tea leaves from cooperatives and farms that “have committed documented, severe human rights and labor abuses, including the use of child labor and forced labor as well as rampant and egregious sexual harassment and assault.”

Starbucks sued for alleged deceptive marketing of its ‘100% ethically’ sourced coffee | CNN Business

Even if Starbucks purchases 100% of its coffee products from C.A.F.E. Practices- certified coffee farms and 100% of its tea products from tea farms certified by the Rainforest Alliance, this does not render its representations that it is committed to 100% ethical sourcing truthful or non-misleading to consumers.

As recently as this October, Repórter Brasil published another report documenting a continued pattern of labor violations, including forced and child labor and severe wage theft, carried out by Brazilian coffee farms bearing Starbucks’ proprietary C.A.F.E.

Despite the documented human rights and labor abuses in its supply chain, Starbucks has sought to capitalize on this growing consumer demand by misleadingly branding -1

Instead, Starbucks sources coffee beans and tea leaves from cooperatives and farms that have committed documented, severe human rights and labor abuses, including the use of child labor and forced labor as well as rampant and egregious sexual harassment and assault.

For example, undercover BBC reporters recently exposed rampant gender-based violence and sexual harassment at a Starbucks supplier, the James Finlay & Co. tea plantation in Kenya, where women reported being forced to engage in sexual acts in exchange for work.

A consumer advocacy group is suing Starbucks, the world’s largest coffee brand, for false advertising, alleging that it sources coffee and tea from farms with human rights and labor abuses, while touting its commitment to ethical sourcing.

The lawsuit cites reporting about human rights and labor abuses on specific coffee and tea farms in Guatemala, Kenya and Brazil, and alleges that Starbucks has continued to purchase from these suppliers in spite of the documented violations.

Starbucks sued for allegedly using coffee from farms with rights abuses while touting its 'ethical' sourcing

A recent report alleged child labor and excessive work hours at Chinese farms in Starbucks and Nestle's supply chains, per the Wall Street Journal.

It came shortly before NGO Coffee Watch filed a complaint with Customs and Border Protection on Thursday, aiming to block coffee products produced with forced labor in Brazil from being imported by Starbucks, McDonald's, Dunkin', Nestlé.

Starbucks is facing a lawsuit calling for the Superior Court of Washington D.C. to compel the company to end its supposed "unfair and deceptive" advertising that contends its beverages are ethically sourced.

Instead, the suit argues, Starbucks "sources coffee beans and tea leaves from cooperatives and arms that have committed documented, severe human rights and labor abuses, including the use of child labor and forced labor as well as rampant and egregious sexual harassment and assault."

In January, the Center for Research on Multinational Corporations issued a report that Cooxupé, a large Starbucks coffee supplier in Brazil, used farms that relied on child labor, had unsanitary conditions and withheld wages to pay for costs associated with the work.

The NCL accused Starbucks of violations of the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act and asked the court to bar it from advertising professing ethically sourced products "unless and unit it lives up to its ethical sourcing promises," as well as a corrective advertising campaign and damages.

Cooxupé did not respond to the report, but Starbucks said at the time it took the allegations "extremely seriously" and that its actions could include an investigation leading to an ending of the commercial relationship with the farms.

Starbucks Should End ‘Deceptive’ Advertising, Lawsuit Says - Newsweek

Specific allegations in the lawsuit include claims that Starbucks’ biggest supplier in Brazil has overseen working conditions akin to slavery, including the illegal trafficking of migrant workers, while child labor has been allegedly used in separate Starbucks-certified farms in Guatemala.

Starbucks sued over claims of labor and human rights violations in making of products | Starbucks | The Guardian

Starbucks sued for alleged false advertising of ‘ethical’ coffee | WPRI.com

It cites several reports of farms and cooperatives from which Starbucks sources its products, which, the NCL alleges, “have committed documented, severe human rights and labor abuses, including the use of child labor and forced labor as well as rampant and egregious sexual harassment and assault.”

In November 2022, 3 the Board held that by refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union, Starbucks engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act.

The Board held that by refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union, Starbucks engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act.

Opinion by Judge McKeown SUMMARY* Labor Law The panel granted the National Labor Relations Board’s application for enforcement of its order directing Starbucks Reserve Roastery in Seattle to “cease and desist from failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union.” In February 2022, Workers United filed a petition seeking to represent 90 employees at the Seattle Roastery.

Workers United filed charges against Starbucks with the NLRB, alleging that Nolda threatened economic retaliation to Alarcon’s benefits and raises, and coercively interrogated her about union activities and sympathies.

If Mariscal said as much, then Starbucks committed an unfair labor practice by prohibiting an employee from distributing union materials “during non-work time and in non-work areas.” United Serv.

labor officials are asking a federal court to force Starbucks Corp. to reinstate a group of activists, escalating the legal battle over the company’s response to the union campaign sweeping through its stores.In a filing Friday, the National Labor Relations Board’s Phoenix regional director sought an injunction requiring the coffee chain to bring back three employees who the agency alleged had illegally been fired, forced out, or placed on leave.Workers United, an affiliate of the Service Employees International Union that’s petitioning to represent staff at hundreds of Starbucks cafes, has filed dozens of allegations against the company with the labor board, most of which are still pending.

Starbucks retaliated against the three employees because of their involvement with the union and their participation in the NLRB’s own investigations, the agency’s filing alleged.

On December 6, 2023, an ALJ (Michael P. Silverstein) issued a decision concluding that, except with respect to its maintaining of the One-Pin Policy, Starbucks committed the unfair labor practices alleged.

After Starbucks asked the employees to change into dress -code compliant shirts, Workers United filed an unfair labor practice charge against the company, alleging violations of Secti ons 7 and 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).

24-3168 (L) 7 The complaint further alleged that Starbucks violated the NLRA when enforcing these policies by instructing employees to remove their union t -shirts and threatening to discipline those who did not comply.

Despite some recent progress in boosting sales, the company is still wrestling with a years-long labour fight that threatens to hamper its turnaround. It remains at odds with the Starbucks Workers United union over pay, staffing and hundreds of unresolved charges of unfair labour practice.

The Board also determined that Starbucks violated § 8(a)(3) and (4) by closing the Galleria kiosk and disciplining and/or discharging employees based on what it had determined was anti- union animus in its § 8(a)(1) analysis.

Relying again on the notion of an “impossible bind,” Starbucks repeats its slippery -slope argument by alleging that construing operational changes as “benefits” would prohibit it from taking any actions to improve working conditions during a union campaign .

It also accused Starbucks of unfair labor practices in Buffalo.

Section 8(a)(1) The Board concluded that Starbucks had unlawfully coerced its employees in their abilities to engage in union organizing activities in five ways: (1) promising benefits and soliciting grievances; (2) announcing a wage increase; (3) surveilling employees; ( 4) interrogating employees; and (5) making coercive threats.

Starbucks cited poor conditions and “widespread facilities issues” at the Buffalo stores as the reason for union activity, and blamed managers for failing to “hold[] employees accountable or provide sufficient training.” Despite that, one store manager maintained that any attempt to address these issues was ultimately futile because, according to Starbucks, no funds were ever available. The day after the Union posted its letter to social media, the senior executives fired the district manager of two Buffalo stores after pulling him away from group meetings to discuss unionizing concerns.

And at the Camp Road store, one manager confronted an employee regarding a slur she had used against the manager in an employee-only text thread used for organizing activity. Starbucks promulgated the narrative that unionizing would prevent managers from supporting employees on the floor, complicate employees’ access to shifts at other stores, and generally lead to reduced benefits.

5 In December 2024, the Board issued a 134- page order adopting the ALJ’s conclusions, finding that Starbucks violated § 8(a)(1) by creating the impression that employees’ union activities were under surveillance, coercively interrogating employees, soliciting grievances during the organizing campaign, saturating staffing at one store to dilute union elections, promising or granting benefits to employees in response to union organizing, and threatening employees.

In December 2022, the Board’s General Counsel (hereinafter referred to as the “NLRB” ) issued a complaint alleging that Starbucks violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by: “threatening employees with loss of benefits if they unioni zed; creating the impression that employees’ union activities were under surveillance; and telling employees it closed its hiring portal and reduced store hours because of employees’ union or other protected activities.” The complaint was brought before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) who conducted a one-day virtua l hearing on April 4, 2023.

These conversations gave rise to the Board’s determinatio n that Starbucks unlawfully threatened reprisal in violation of Section 8(a)(1) in th ree ways: statements made in employee meetings potentially implicating loss of benefits; telling employees that store hours changed; and explaining to employees why the hiring portal was closed.

The Board found that Starbucks violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by threatening employees with reprisal for participating in unionization efforts and creating the impression that it was surveilling employee organizing activity.

The company is waging "one of the most aggressive, anti-union campaigns in decades," said Steven Greenhouse, a senior fellow at progressive think tank The Century Foundation and former longtime labor reporter with the New York Times, citing the findings by the NLRB that Starbucks had illegally fired and otherwise retaliating against unionizing workers.

Starbucks has denied all claims of union busting. The company filed two of its own charges against union organizers in Phoenix and Denver with the labor board.

Starbucks is asking the federal labor board to suspend all mail-in ballot union elections nationwide, alleging misconduct in the voting process by the board's personnel and the union organizing its baristas.

In its statement to CNBC, Starbucks Workers United said that Starbucks is trying to take attention away from its anti-union activity and halt union elections.

Starbucks should also post a notice in its cafes telling workers that the NLRB found Starbucks had violated federal labor law, and detailing employee rights, she said.

Starbucks regularly argues that its employees don’t need a union since it pays better wages and benefits than many other retailers.

Recently unionized Starbucks workers in Missouri went on strike in July to protest Starbucks threats against both gender-affirming care and abortion travel expense reimbursement.

Starbucks has taken a firmly anti-union position and is willing to do whatever it takes to stop workers from organizing.

These violations include the illegal firing of more than a dozen Starbucks workers for “the crime” of exercising their right to form a union and collectively bargain for better wages, benefits, and working conditions.

More than eighty percent of these elections have resulted in a union victory leading to nearly 300 unionized Starbucks coffee shops throughout the country, despite an aggressive and illegal anti-union campaign waged by Starbucks under the leadership of Howard Schultz.

In a 220-page ruling, this judge found that Starbucks illegally retaliated against employees for unionizing; promised improved pay and benefits if workers rejected the union; conducted illegal surveillance of pro-union workers; refused to hire prospective employees who supported the union; relocated union organizers to new stores and overstaffed stores ahead of union votes – all clear violations of federal labor law.

The situation has gotten so bad that federal courts in Tennessee and Michigan have stepped in to issue emergency injunctions requiring Starbucks to reinstate workers who were illegally fired and preventing the company from firing workers for supporting unionization efforts in the future.

At Schultz’s direction, Starbucks has fought the attempts of workers every step of the way, resorting to delay tactics and significant escalation in union busting, including unlawfully firing employees, having the police called in response to a peaceful and lawful congregation of workers who were attempting to present their request for union recognition, and illegally shutting down unionized stores.

Over the past 18 months, Starbucks has waged an aggressive and illegal union-busting campaign.

Under Schultz’s leadership, Starbucks has become the most aggressive union-busting company in America.

Organizers with Starbucks Workers United claim administrative law judges with the National Labor Relations Board have tallied more than 400 labor law violations against the corporation.

Starbucks unlawfully suspended union supporters at a South Carolina cafe and temporarily closed the store, a National Labor Relations Board judge ruled, finding the workers' actions, such as demanding raises from a manager, did not lose protection under federal labor law.

Starbucks violated federal labor law when it told workers at an Affton, Missouri, store to stop posting pro-union flyers in the break room, a National Labor Relations Board judge held Tuesday.

Starbucks violated federal labor law by telling workers their wages would "essentially be frozen" during contract talks, a National Labor Relations Board judge ruled Monday, while determining the company lawfully commented about the possibility of negotiations lasting more than a year.

Starbucks flouted federal labor law at a Philadelphia store by encouraging workers to report union activity to their managers and by firing two workplace activists over violations of a previously unenforced attendance policy, a National Labor Relations Board judge ruled.

The fight for union recognition began almost four years ago with the first Starbucks location’s unionization vote in 2021. During its organizing drive, the union filed more than 1,000 unfair labor practice charges against the company. Reports indicate that while the parties have made progress on negotiations—reaching 33 tentative agreements—these negotiations have stalled with no agreement on compensation nor on resolving the outstanding unfair labor practice charges. Throughout this period, I’ve heard from constituents, who exercised their right to come together to advocate for better pay and safe working conditions. The urgency of continuing negotiations has only become greater with the November 5, 2025 announcement of SBWU successful strike authorization vote ahead of the holiday season.

The petition explains that, after learning about the organizing effort, Starbucks immediately set its vigorous antiunion campaign in motion, employing an expansive array of illegal tactics such as raising wages, promising benefits, bringing in a cadre of managers to monitor employees and discourage union activity, closing stores with active organizing drives, and threatening employees—culminating in the discharge of seven union activists at five different stores over the course of six weeks.

Specifically, in addition to ordering reinstatement of an unlawfully fired union supporter, the judge appropriately ordered Starbucks to stop discharging and otherwise interfering with workers’ rights to organize at all its stores around the country,” said General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo.

Workers United (“Union”) filed an action with the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”), charging that Starbucks’s firing of the Memphis Seven, and other anti-union actions, violated section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”).

Applying that framework here, the majority opinion correctly states that the General Counsel had to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Starbucks fired Whitbeck on the basis of anti -union animus.

For its part, Starbucks has also taken action against the tactics of the union, alleging in its own NLRB complaints that organizers harassed the company’s baristas.34 In an 8-1 decision last year, the Supreme Court overturned a lower court’s injunction sought by the NLRB that would have forced the company to rehire seven workers in Memphis, Tenn., who were fired because they allowed a TV crew into a café after hours to discuss their organizing efforts.35

The NLRB asked for an injunction compelling Starbucks to: • reinstate fired partners within five days; • expunge other discipline issued to one of the dis- charged partners; • keep the store’s lobby and café areas open despite a rise in COVID-19 infections; • leave all pro -union materials on the store’s com- munity bulletin board notwithstanding Starbucks policy disallowing political materials on the board; • post the court’s order in the store breakroom; • read aloud the court’s order at a mandatory meet- ing for partners at the Memphis store; and • produce and distribute to partners nationwide a “video” of a “high-level [Starbucks] official” read- ing the court’s order , or listening to an NLRB official reading the order.

The NLRB asked for an injunction compelling Starbucks to: • reinstate fired partners within five days; • expunge other discipline issued to one of the dis- charged partners; • keep the store’s lobby and café areas open despite a rise in COVID-19 infections; • leave all pro -union materials on the store’s com- munity bulletin board notwithstanding Starbucks policy disallowing political materials on the board; • post the court’s order in the store breakroom; • read aloud the court’s order at a mandatory meet- ing for partners at the Memphis store; and • produce and distribute to partners nationwide a “video” of a “high-level [Starbucks] official” read- ing the court’s order , or listening to an NLRB official reading the order.

Especially since baristas themselves have noted that trans employees are among those leading the fight to unionize the company, Starbucks’ anti-union drive has especially harrowing implications for trans people.

Sept 4 (Reuters) - A federal appeals court on ⁠Friday ⁠declined to enforce most of ⁠a National Labor Relations Board ruling that Starbucks illegally threatened ​employees with reprisals for trying to unionize and pretended it was surveilling attempts to organize.

Starbucks fired multiple em- ployees involved with the media ev ent for violating company policy.

“By posting these signs, Starbucks is now making false assurances that it will not collect any biometric identifier information about customers unless a customer uses a palm scanner to enter the gated area of the store,” the complaint reads.

Starbucks Singapore hit by data breach involving customers’ names, emails and mobile numbers

SINGAPORE: The developer of an e-commerce platform owned by Starbucks Singapore has been fined S$10,000 over a data breach that affected more than 300,000 members of the popular coffee chain’s rewards membership programme.

Starbucks Singapore and Ascentis respectively submitted data breach notifications to the PDPC on Sep 15 and 16 that same year.

Starbucks (SBUX) Settles Florida DEI Case for $1 Million.

Under the settlement, which includes no admission of wrongdoing by the coffee company, Starbucks agreed to comply with Florida law, pay $1 million to the Florida Department of Legal ​Affairs to cover legal costs, and submit annual certifications of ​compliance for four years.

Starbucks agreed on Sept. 17 to settle a discrimination lawsuit from the state of Florida that accused the coffee giant of favoring minorities in hiring and pay in violation of a state civil-rights law.

We appreciate Starbucks’ cooperation in reaching this settlement.” Florida accused the company of violating state anti-discrimination law, ​including by setting racial quotas and tying executive compensation ⁠to meeting diversity goals. Under the settlement, which includes no admission of wrongdoing by the coffee company, Starbucks agreed to comply with Florida law, pay $1 million to the Florida Department of Legal ​Affairs to cover legal costs, and submit annual certifications of ​compliance for four years.

Florida, Starbucks reach deal in hiring discrimination case

“We’re pleased to have resolved this matter without admission of wrongdoing and appreciate the constructive engagement of the Attorney General’s Office throughout this process,” Pilar Ramos, executive vice president and chief legal officer of Starbucks said.

Starbucks resolves Florida DEI lawsuit with blockbuster companywide agreement

Starbucks Corp. headquarters in Seattle Sept.

Under the agreement, Starbucks committed to complying with the state civil rights law, which prohibits race and sex-based preferences in hiring, promotions, pay, executive compensation, mentorship programs, supplier selection and board composition.

The settlement follows Uthmeier's lawsuit, which alleged Starbucks had turned diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives into a system that discriminated based on race.

We appreciate Starbucks’ cooperation in reaching this settlement.” Florida accused the company of violating state anti-discrimination law, ​including by setting racial quotas and tying executive compensation ⁠to meeting diversity goals. Under the settlement, which includes no admission of wrongdoing by the coffee company, Starbucks agreed to comply with Florida law, pay $1 million to the Florida Department of Legal ​Affairs to cover legal costs, and submit annual certifications of ​compliance for four years.

Starbucks settled a discrimination lawsuit with the state of Florida for $1 million in legal costs.

Starbucks agreed on Sept. 17 to settle a discrimination lawsuit from the state of Florida that accused the coffee giant of favoring minorities in hiring and pay in violation of a state civil-rights law.

Florida, Starbucks reach deal in hiring discrimination case

Without admitting wrongdoing, Starbucks has agreed to pay $1 million to settle a suit by Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier accusing the company of engaging race- and sex-based goals, quotas and preferences in employment.

Starbucks settled a discrimination lawsuit with the state of Florida for $1 million in legal costs.

Florida, Starbucks reach deal in hiring discrimination case

Starbucks agreed on Sept. 17 to settle a discrimination lawsuit from the state of Florida that accused the coffee giant of favoring minorities in hiring and pay in violation of a state civil-rights law.

We appreciate Starbucks’ cooperation in reaching this settlement.” Florida accused the company of violating state anti-discrimination law, ​including by setting racial quotas and tying executive compensation ⁠to meeting diversity goals. Under the settlement, which includes no admission of wrongdoing by the coffee company, Starbucks agreed to comply with Florida law, pay $1 million to the Florida Department of Legal ​Affairs to cover legal costs, and submit annual certifications of ​compliance for four years.

Starbucks settled a discrimination lawsuit with the state of Florida for $1 million in legal costs.

Starbucks agreed on Sept. 17 to settle a discrimination lawsuit from the state of Florida that accused the coffee giant of favoring minorities in hiring and pay in violation of a state civil-rights law.

We appreciate Starbucks’ cooperation in reaching this settlement.” Florida accused the company of violating state anti-discrimination law, ​including by setting racial quotas and tying executive compensation ⁠to meeting diversity goals. Under the settlement, which includes no admission of wrongdoing by the coffee company, Starbucks agreed to comply with Florida law, pay $1 million to the Florida Department of Legal ​Affairs to cover legal costs, and submit annual certifications of ​compliance for four years.

Florida, Starbucks reach deal in hiring discrimination case

In addition, Starbucks will make a contribution to the Disability Rights Legal Center in the amount of $10,000 within ten (10) days after entry by the Court of this Consent Decree.

Before bringing an action for breach of the decree, the EEOC shall first give Starbucks thirty (30) days notice of the perceived breach.

Starbucks filed an answer denying the allegations of discrimination in the EEOC's complaint, asserting that it had at all times accommodated Ms. Drake in the workplace, that it had legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for terminating Ms. Drake's employment, and asserted several affirmative defenses. 4.

If the EEOC petitions the Court for breach of the agreement, and the Court finds Starbucks to be in violation of the terms of the Consent Decree, the Court may extend this Consent Decree for a reasonable period of time. // // // // // // // EEOC v.

Starbucks Corporation 2:06-CV-1323 MJP Consent Decree 7 of 8 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION Seattle Field Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6859 Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6882 18177-0144/LEGAL13137970.2

If EEOC concludes that Starbucks has failed to comply with this Consent Decree, the Commission may bring an action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington to enforce the Consent Decree as provided in Paragraph 17 below. II.

If the EEOC concludes that Starbucks has breached this agreement, it may bring an action in the United States District Court of the Western District of Washington to enforce this Consent Decree.

Rather, Starbucks enters this Consent Decree to avoid further litigation of this dispute and, instead, to devote its attention and energies toward the common goal of equal employment opportunity. IV.

The parties have entered into this Consent Decree in order to avoid time, expense, and uncertainty of further litigation and to resolve all claims that were asserted, or that could have been asserted by EEOC against Starbucks arising from the charge filed by Ms. Drake. / / / EEOC v.

Starbucks shall continue to implement its anti-discrimination policies, procedures, and training for employees, supervisors, and management personnel, and will continue to provide equal employment opportunities for all employees.

Starbucks will pay to Ms. Drake $15,000 in wages, less all legally required withholdings, and $60,000 in non-pecuniary damages, thereby resolving all claims for damages, fees, and costs sought through the EEOC’s complaint, within thirty (30) business days after entry by the Court of this Consent Decree.

On September 17, 2026, Reuters reported that Starbucks Corporation (NASDAQ:SBUX) agreed to settle a discrimination lawsuit filed by the state of Florida, pledging not to use race- or sex-based quotas or preferences in hiring, promotion, and pay decisions nationwide. Under the settlement, Starbucks will pay $1 million to Florida's Department of Legal Affairs to cover litigation costs and submit annual compliance certifications for four years, while denying any wrongdoing.

Under the settlement, Starbucks will pay $1 million to Florida's Department of Legal Affairs to cover litigation costs and submit annual compliance certifications for four years, while denying any wrongdoing.

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.

On the same day that Sallard requested the accommodation, Starbucks terminated her employment, claiming that she would pose a "danger" to customers and employees.

The manager at the El Paso Starbucks location disregarded Sallard's request, the EEOC said.

EL PASO — 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.

Starbucks will also make a good-faith effort to hire individuals with disabilities at its Russellville location by notifying Arkansas Rehabilitation Services of all job openings.

In addition to the monetary relief, the consent decree settling the suit, approved by U.S. District Judge Brian Miller, enjoins Starbucks from discriminating on the bases of disability and retaliation.

– A Starbucks store in Russellville, Ark., will pay $80,000 to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Com­mis­sion (EEOC), the agency announced today.

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.

The EEOC filed suit against Starbucks Corporation, doing business as Starbucks Store 11743, Civil Action No. 4:09-CV-0715-BSM, in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement.

The EEOC filed suit against Starbucks Corporation, doing business as Starbucks Store 11743, Civil Action No. 4:09-CV-0715-BSM, in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement.