Starbucks Accused by Missouri AG of Race, Sex Bias in Hiring (2)

Missouri’s attorney general in a federal lawsuit accused Starbucks Corp. of violating federal and state civil rights laws by showing race- and sex-based preferences in hiring, promotions, and the selection of board members.

The state’s lawsuit against the coffee industry giant comes weeks after the Trump administration issued executive orders that would convert the conservative backlash against diversity, equity, and inclusion programs into federal policy, threatening civil and potentially criminal investigations of private-sector businesses. Attorney General Andrew Bailey (R) cited the Supreme Court’s 2023 Students for Fair Admissions decision, which struck down affirmative action policies in higher education, as supporting his case against Starbucks.

The court’s decision “made clear that federal law does not tolerate differential treatment based on race,” Bailey said in the complaint filed Tuesday in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Republican AGs have broadly supported the swell of legal challenges to corporate DEI programs, including with a June 2024 letter urging the American Bar Association to change its policies that encourage law schools to promote diversity in admissions.

Starbucks and many major corporations face the threat of federal enforcement efforts as well, if the Trump administration considers their DEI efforts to be illegally biased. President Donald Trump and his recently confirmed US Attorney General Pam Bondi have called for broad rollbacks of DEI programs across the federal government and the Justice Department, while also ordering federal agencies to identify the private-sector entities with “most egregious” diversity policies for investigation.

Bailey alleges Starbucks continues to make hiring and promotion decisions based on its publicized numerical targets, such as having Black, Indigenous, or people of color in 40% of all retail jobs and 30% of all corporate positions. He acknowledged Starbucks later walked back those goals and described them as aspirational targets and not strict quotas, but said that change was “mere pretext” to continue pursuing discriminatory “quotas.”

“We disagree with the Attorney General, and these allegations are inaccurate,” a Starbucks spokesperson said by email.

“We are deeply committed to creating opportunity for every single one of our partners (employees),” the spokesperson said. “Our programs and benefits are open to everyone and lawful.”

The Missouri AG’s lawsuit describes Starbucks as a federal contractor, which could subject its diversity programs to added scrutiny from the Trump administration.

Starbucks faced similar allegations of discriminatory hiring preferences from Florida’s then-Attorney General Ashley Moody in May 2024, when she filed an administrative complaint with the state’s human rights commission. Moody was appointed to the US Senate in January, to replace Marco Rubio after he became secretary of state.

The Missouri AG also sued International Business Machines Corp. in state court in 2024, claiming the company uses discriminatory preferences in hiring and other employment decisions. A state judge granted IBM’s motion to dismiss the case Feb. 10 in a one-page order with no explanation of the reasons for the ruling, while giving Missouri 30 days to amend its complaint.

The AG efforts add to those of legal advocacy groups challenging DEI programs. DEI opponents filed a charge Feb. 10 with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against the ABA, claiming its diversity hiring initiatives amount to illegal discrimination.

The case is State of Missouri ex rel. Bailey v. Starbucks Corp., E.D. Mo., No. 4:25-cv-00165, 2/11/25