Starbucks’ discriminatory practices mean ‘Missouri’s consumers are required to pay higher prices and wait longer for goods and services,’ Bailey said.
The state of Missouri is suing Starbucks for allegedly violating anti-discrimination laws with its race-based hiring practices and other diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey (R) filed a lawsuit against Starbucks Tuesday in federal court accusing the company of violating state and federal anti-discrimination laws by implementing race-based and sex-based hiring quotas, providing disproportionate advancement opportunities to people from different backgrounds, and creating professional networks that segregate employees.
“By making employment decisions based on characteristics that have nothing to do with one’s ability to work well, Starbucks, for example, hires people by thumbing the scale based on at least one of Starbucks’ preferred immutable characteristics rather than an evaluation of an applicant’s merit and qualifications,” the lawsuit reads.
“Making hiring decision on non-merit considerations will skew the hiring pool towards people who are less qualified to perform their work, increasing costs for Missouri’s consumers.”
Bailey’s lawsuit lists numerous examples of Starbucks instituting the discriminatory programs, citing corporate reports and other relevant documents to argue that the DEI initiatives are company policy, not an “aspirational” set of goals. It goes through Starbucks’s specific workplace demographic metrics and methods for tying those figures to executive compensation. Starbucks extends it demographic quotas to the demographic makeup of its corporate board seats.
The lawsuit also lists Starbucks’s mentorship programs that are open to racial minorities, LGBT employees, and women but not white, male, or heterosexual employees. Similarly, Starbucks has professional networks that exist to service certain racial groups, women, and LGBT employees only, according to the lawsuit.
“With Starbucks’ discriminatory patterns, practices, and policies, Missouri’s 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,” Bailey said in a statement provided to NR.
“As Attorney General, I have a moral and legal obligation to protect Missourians from a company that actively engages in systemic race and sex discrimination. Racism has no place in Missouri. We’re filing suit to halt this blatant violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act in its tracks.”
When reached for comment, a Starbucks spokesperson strongly denied Bailey’s allegations and said it is focusing on hiring the most qualified candidates for its roles.
“We disagree with the attorney general and these allegations are inaccurate. We are deeply committed to creating opportunity for every single one of our partners (employees). Our programs and benefits are open to everyone and lawful,” the spokesperson said.
“Our hiring practices are inclusive fair and competitive and designed to ensure the strongest candidate for every job every time.”
Like many large corporation, Starbucks wholeheartedly embraced DEI in the wake of the Black Lives Matter riots and racial reckoning of 2020, championing itself as a bastion of American progressivism. The outgrowth of DEI across American institutions soon drew legal and political opposition from conservatives who believe the programs divide people based on race and focus on demographics instead of merit by obsessively focusing on immutable characteristics.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2023 that race-based college admissions criteria violate the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, a decision that reshaped the legal landscape surrounding DEI and inspired a flurry of lawsuit from conservative organizations.
President Donald Trump has issued multiple executive orders targeting DEI inside the federal government and American institutions more broadly. Trump’s executive actions came after a number red states have banned DEI from colleges and universities and several large corporations abandoned DEI following conservative pressure.