Trouble Brewing? Missouri Serves Up DEI Discrimination Lawsuit Against Starbucks

 

 

Yesterday, I discussed the viability and legality of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) in the workplace and how a court recently ruled that DEI training is not inherently unlawful.

However, that doesn’t mean DEI initiatives can’t cross legal lines.

This week, Missouri announced it had filed a lawsuit against Starbucks, accusing the company of violating federal and state anti-discrimination laws. The lawsuit alleges that Starbucks enforces race—and sex-based hiring practices, unlawfully segregates employees, and offers exclusive training and employment benefits to select groups in violation of these laws.

At this stage, the complaint is a set of allegations that the plaintiff must later prove, and Starbucks will have the opportunity to defend itself. Here’s a breakdown of the key claims in the complaint:

Hiring and Promotion Quotas

The lawsuit claims that Starbucks has set specific racial and gender targets for hiring and promotions. It alleges that the company aims to have at least 40% of its retail workforce composed of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) and 55% women by 2025. The complaint further states that these targets are tied to executive bonuses, creating a financial incentive to meet them. Missouri argues that such policies amount to discriminatory quotas that unlawfully advantage certain racial and gender groups over others.

The complaint also highlights that executives face financial penalties if they fail to meet these quotas, reinforcing what Missouri claims is a system of race- and sex-based decision-making that violates anti-discrimination laws.

Exclusive Training and Mentorship Programs

The complaint alleges that Starbucks provides mentorship and leadership programs specifically for BIPOC and LGBTQ+ employees, offering them additional professional development and networking opportunities. However, according to the lawsuit, similar programs are not available to white or heterosexual employees. The lawsuit argues that tying executive compensation to participation in such programs further entrenches a system of race- and sex-based advantages, which Missouri claims is discriminatory under Title VII.

Employee Resource Groups and Workplace Segregation

Missouri contends that Starbucks’ “Partner Networks”—employee resource groups based on race, sex, and sexual orientation—provide exclusive job benefits and advancement opportunities. The lawsuit claims that these groups not only create divisions in the workplace but also serve as a mechanism for distributing career benefits unequally. Employees who are not part of these networks may be denied the same training and advancement opportunities, which Missouri argues results in unlawful workplace segregation and discrimination.

Board Diversity Commitments

Finally, the lawsuit challenges Starbucks’ participation in a program aimed at the Board Diversity Action Alliance, which encourages greater racial and ethnic diversity on corporate boards. Missouri argues that this commitment constitutes another form of discriminatory quota, alleging that Starbucks is making race and sex a determining factor in board membership rather than focusing solely on merit-based selection.

What’s Next?

Missouri seeks a ruling that Starbucks’ practices violate anti-discrimination laws, an order to halt them, financial damages, and policy changes. Notably, however, the complaint does not identify any particular white male victim. Perhaps then, it percolates into a grande failure.

Maybe this lawsuit affects the implementation of DEI initiatives at Starbucks and other companies.

Maybe not at all.