The Woman Who Tried to Ram ICE Agents in Minneapolis Is Who You'd...
Of Course, Tim Walz Repeated This 2020 Lie While Announcing He's Deploying the...
Tapes Were Found Inside the Storage Unit of the Brown University Shooter. Here's...
Tampon Tim Did Not Just Say That About Today's ICE Agent Shooting in...
Democrats Should Take This Advice for the Midterms, but They Won't
Iran's Army Chief Must Have Lost His Damn Mind
Lindsey Graham Just Told Iran's Regime Exactly What Trump Will Do If It...
Gavin Newsom and His Hair Gel Better Prepare for Some Bad Press After...
The Townhall 50 – Ranking the Worst Journalists of 2025, Part 3: Top...
Mamdani's Tenant Advisor Breaks Down When Confronted About Her Mom's Million-Dollar Home
Either Jacob Frey Is Lying Through His Teeth or He Hasn't Seen...
Another Member of the Somalian Government Owns a Minnesota 'Healthcare' Company
The Donroe Doctrine: Strength Over Surrender
Minnesota Rolls Out Paid Leave as State Reels From Childcare Fraud Claims
TD Bank Insider Pleads Guilty to Helping Launder Nearly Half a Billion Dollars
Tipsheet

State Attorney General Sues Starbucks Over DEI Practices

AP Photo/Matt Slocum, File

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey filed a lawsuit against Starbucks Corporation on Tuesday accusing it of unlawful race and sex-based discrimination related to its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.

Advertisement

The lawsuit claims the company is violating federal and state discrimination laws by prioritizing diversity over merit. The legal action comes after President Donald Trump issued a flurry of executive orders targeting DEI in the public and private sectors.

Missouri contends that Starbucks’ policies promote systemic discrimination against white and male employees because it is making employment decisions based on race and sex instead of merit. It claims these practices have an adverse impact on the company’s customers by increasing costs and reducing the quality of service provided.

The attorney general refers to the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, stating that “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.” The state further argues that Starbucks’ DEI practices violate Title VII and the state’s Human Rights Act, which prohibit discrimination based on immutable characteristics.

From the complaint:

Starbucks ties 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. All of this is unlawful.

The lawsuit further contends that “Making hiring decisions 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.”

The plaintiffs did not offer any evidence or data showing that Starbucks’ employment practices have increased costs or resulted in a lower quality of service to consumers in this complaint.

Advertisement

Starbucks “has decided to require outright race and sex-based discrimination in hiring via quotas, segregate employees on unlawful bases, and single out preferred groups for additional training and employment benefits,” according to the complaint.

The company is being accused of allocating executive bonuses to those who meet racial and gender diversity quotas. “Starbucks tied ‘ten percent of the overall bonus payout calculation . . . to creating an inclusive environment where everyone belongs,’” the lawsuit alleges.

In September 2020, [Starbucks’] Compensation Committee approved the incorporation of additional targets into both [Starbucks’] short-term and long-term fiscal 2021 incentive plans (Annual Incentive Bonus Plan and LSP [Leadership Stock Plan]) for [its] U.S.-based senior leadership team members at the senior vice president level and above.

The company also instituted a “representation target” that allegedly “focuses on improvement in Black, Indigenous and LatinX representation at the manager level and above, with a 3-year target of improving Black, Indigenous and LatinX representation by more than 5% by 2023.”

The attorney general takes issue with the exclusive training, mentorship, and advancement opportunities allegedly provided to certain racial and gender groups while excluding others. The complaint refers to programs such as the Black Partner Network and Latinx Partner Network, which offer networking, development, and job benefits to racial minorities.

Advertisement

 “Minority employees are given a mentor in the senior leadership team at the company, one-on-one training, and mentorship sessions. But employees of other races were not,” the attorney general alleges.

The lawsuit further notes that Starbucks’ workforce was “8.1% black, 31.7% Hispanic, 5.6% Asian, 47.8% white, 0.6% American Indian or Alaska Native, and 0.5% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander” as of September 28, 2024. The company’s workforce “was 70.9% women and 28.4% men.”

The lawsuit adds: “In other words, since 2020, Starbuck’s workface has become more female and less white.”

Bailey, in a press release, argued that he has “a responsibility to protect Missourians from a company that actively engages in systemic race and sex discrimination” and that “Racism has no place in Missouri.”

Starbucks issued a statement to KTVI saying, “We disagree with the attorney general and these allegations are inaccurate.”

The company insisted that it is “deeply committed to creating opportunity for every single one of our partners (employees)” and that “Our programs and benefits are open to everyone and lawful.”

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos