Case: State of Missouri v. Starbucks Corp.

4:25-cv-00165 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri

Filed Date: Feb. 11, 2025

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This is a case about the legality of companies' diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. On February 10, 2025, the state of Missouri filed this lawsuit against Starbucks in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Missouri argued that various aspects of Starbucks' DEI program were discriminatory in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Missouri state law. Missouri sought a declaratory judgment that Starbucks…

This is a case about the legality of companies' diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. On February 10, 2025, the state of Missouri filed this lawsuit against Starbucks in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Missouri argued that various aspects of Starbucks' DEI program were discriminatory in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Missouri state law. Missouri sought a declaratory judgment that Starbucks had violated the law, a temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent injunctions, compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement of money earned due to discriminatory practices, and attorneys' fees. 

Specifically, Missouri alleged that Starbucks discriminated on the basis of race and sex by 1) establishing goals for certain percentages of its workforce to be women or people of color; 2) creating monetary incentives for executives to reach these goals, and evaluating executives' performance based on whether they reached these goals; 3) creating mentorship programs and training opportunities for women, employees of color, and LGBTQ+ employees that were not available to other employees; 4) creating identity-focused "partner networks," such as the Black Partner Network or the Women's Impact Network, that allow employees to communicate with leadership and get additional training; and 5) setting diversity goals for the composition of its board of directors. Missouri alleged that these actions violated Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, which prohibits discrimination in contracting.

This case was assigned to Judge Joseph S. Dueker. There have been no further developments as of March 31, 2025.

Summary Authors

Kaoru Terauchi (4/5/2025)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69628540/parties/state-of-missouri-v-starbucks-corp/


Attorney for Plaintiff

Barceleau, Dominic (Missouri)

Attorney for Defendant

Bennett, James F. (Missouri)

Cantwell, Philip Allen (Missouri)

Carey, Ashanti D. (Missouri)

Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

Grant, Christopher N. (Missouri)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document
1

4:25-cv-00165

Complaint

State of Missouri v. Starbucks

Feb. 11, 2025

Feb. 11, 2025

Complaint

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69628540/state-of-missouri-v-starbucks-corp/

Last updated Aug. 15, 2025, 9:23 p.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT against defendant Starbucks Corporation with receipt number AMOEDC-11082321, in the amount of $405 Non-Jury Demand,, filed by State of Missouri ex rel. Andrew Bailey, Attorney General. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Original Filing Form, # 3 Summons)(Donohue, Peter) (Entered: 02/11/2025)

1 Civil Cover Sheet

View on RECAP

2 Original Filing Form

View on PACER

3 Summons

View on PACER

Feb. 11, 2025

Feb. 11, 2025

Clearinghouse

Electronic Notice of Filing Deficiency (CSCI)

Feb. 11, 2025

Feb. 11, 2025

PACER

Case Opening Notification

Feb. 11, 2025

Feb. 11, 2025

PACER
2

NOTICE of Filing Deficiency. In accordance with Eastern District of Missouri Local Rules and the Case Management/Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) Procedures Manual, a filing deficiency has been identified as follows: Notice of Process Server form not filed. This deficiency must be filed in the case record immediately. (JBH) (Entered: 02/11/2025)

Feb. 11, 2025

Feb. 11, 2025

PACER
3

NOTICE OF PROCESS SERVER by Plaintiff State of Missouri Process Server: Stephen Waters (Donohue, Peter) (Entered: 02/11/2025)

Feb. 11, 2025

Feb. 11, 2025

PACER

Case Opening Notification. Judge Assigned: Honorable Joseph S. Dueker. 1 Summons(es) issued and emailed to Peter Francis Donohue, Sr. All parties must file the Notice Regarding Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction Form consenting to or opting out of the Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. Click here for the instructions. Pursuant to Local Rule 2.09, every nongovernmental corporate party or nongovernmental corporation that seeks to intervene in any case, and every party or intervenor in an action in which jurisdiction is based upon diversity, must file a Disclosure Statement immediately upon entering its appearance in the case. Please complete and file the certificate as soon as possible. (moed-0001.pdf). (JBH)

Feb. 11, 2025

Feb. 11, 2025

PACER
4

SUMMONS Returned Executed filed by State of Missouri. Starbucks Corp. served on 2/13/2025, answer due 3/6/2025. (Donohue, Peter) (Entered: 02/13/2025)

Feb. 13, 2025

Feb. 13, 2025

PACER
5

Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by Defendant Starbucks Corp.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Bennett, James) (Entered: 02/28/2025)

Feb. 28, 2025

Feb. 28, 2025

PACER
6

ENTRY of Appearance by James F. Bennett for Defendant Starbucks Corp.. (Bennett, James) (Entered: 02/28/2025)

Feb. 28, 2025

Feb. 28, 2025

PACER
7

ENTRY of Appearance by Ashanti D. Carey for Defendant Starbucks Corp.. (Carey, Ashanti) (Entered: 02/28/2025)

Feb. 28, 2025

Feb. 28, 2025

PACER
8

ENTRY of Appearance by Philip Allen Cantwell for Defendant Starbucks Corp.. (Cantwell, Philip) (Entered: 02/28/2025)

Feb. 28, 2025

Feb. 28, 2025

PACER
9

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Starbucks Corp., BlackRock Finance, Inc... (Bennett, James) (Entered: 02/28/2025)

Feb. 28, 2025

Feb. 28, 2025

PACER
10

Docket Text ORDER granting 5 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer; answer due by April 7, 2025. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph S. Dueker on 3/3/25. (KJS) (Entered: 03/03/2025)

March 3, 2025

March 3, 2025

PACER

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer

March 3, 2025

March 3, 2025

PACER

Letter Magistrate Consent Non-Compliance

March 4, 2025

March 4, 2025

PACER

Notice from Clerk instructing Defendant Starbucks Corp., Plaintiff State of Missouri to submit Notice regarding Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. Click here for the instructions. Notice re: Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction due by 3/11/2025. (KJS)

March 4, 2025

March 4, 2025

PACER
11

CJRA ORDER (NMG). Magistrate Judge Joseph S. Dueker termed. Case reassigned to Sr. District Judge John A. Ross and Sr. District Judge John A. Ross for all further proceedings (JMP) (Entered: 03/07/2025)

March 7, 2025

March 7, 2025

PACER
12

ENTRY of Appearance by Victoria Lowell for Plaintiff State of Missouri. (Lowell, Victoria) (Entered: 03/12/2025)

March 12, 2025

March 12, 2025

PACER
13

ENTRY of Appearance by J. Patrick Sullivan for Plaintiff State of Missouri. (Sullivan, J.) (Entered: 03/12/2025)

March 12, 2025

March 12, 2025

PACER
14

MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Esther Lander. The Certificate of Good Standing was attached.(Filing fee $150 receipt number AMOEDC-11170085) by Defendant Starbucks Corp.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing for Esther Lander)(Lander, Esther) (Entered: 03/31/2025)

March 31, 2025

March 31, 2025

PACER

A Docket Text Order

March 31, 2025

March 31, 2025

PACER
15

Docket Text ORDER: Re: 14 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Esther Lander; ORDERED GRANTED. Signed by Sr. District Judge John A. Ross on 3/31/2025. (TLR) (Entered: 03/31/2025)

March 31, 2025

March 31, 2025

PACER
16

MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(B)(1) and (2) and for Failure to State a Claim Under Rule 12 (B)(6) by Defendant Starbucks Corp.. (Bennett, James) (Entered: 04/07/2025)

April 7, 2025

April 7, 2025

PACER
17

MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re 16 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(B)(1) and (2) and for Failure to State a Claim Under Rule 12 (B)(6) filed by Defendant Starbucks Corp.. (Bennett, James) (Entered: 04/07/2025)

April 7, 2025

April 7, 2025

RECAP
18

First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss ;Extension to file the following: Memo in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss ;Proposed extension date May 21, 2025 by Plaintiff State of Missouri. (Donohue, Peter) (Entered: 04/14/2025)

April 14, 2025

April 14, 2025

PACER

A Docket Text Order with Schedules

April 14, 2025

April 14, 2025

PACER
19

Docket Text ORDER: Re: 18 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss; Extension to file the following: Memo in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss; ORDERED GRANTED. (Response to Court due by 5/21/2025.) Signed by Sr. District Judge John A. Ross on 4/14/2025. (TLR) (Entered: 04/14/2025)

April 14, 2025

April 14, 2025

PACER
20

ENTRY of Appearance by Dominic Barceleau for Plaintiff State of Missouri. (Barceleau, Dominic) (Entered: 05/20/2025)

May 20, 2025

May 20, 2025

PACER
21

Consent MOTION for Leave to File in Excess of Fifteen Pages by Plaintiff State of Missouri. (Donohue, Peter) (Entered: 05/21/2025)

May 21, 2025

May 21, 2025

PACER

A Docket Text Order

May 21, 2025

May 21, 2025

PACER
22

Docket Text ORDER: Re: 21 Consent MOTION for Leave to File in Excess of Fifteen Pages by Plaintiff State of Missouri; ORDERED GRANTED. Signed by Sr. District Judge John A. Ross on 5/21/2025. (LNJ) (Entered: 05/21/2025)

May 21, 2025

May 21, 2025

PACER
23

ENTRY of Appearance by Christopher N. Grant for Amicus Workers United d/b/a Starbucks Workers United. (Grant, Christopher) (Entered: 05/21/2025)

May 21, 2025

May 21, 2025

PACER
24

MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Stacey Leyton. The Certificate of Good Standing was attached.(Filing fee $150 receipt number AMOEDC-11270549) by Amicus Workers United d/b/a Starbucks Workers United. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing Stacey Leyton)(Grant, Christopher) (Entered: 05/21/2025)

May 21, 2025

May 21, 2025

PACER
25

MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Talia Stender. The Certificate of Good Standing was attached.(Filing fee $150 receipt number AMOEDC-11270584) by Amicus Workers United d/b/a Starbucks Workers United. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing Talia Stender)(Grant, Christopher) (Entered: 05/21/2025)

May 21, 2025

May 21, 2025

PACER
26

MOTION to File Amicus Brief by Amicus Workers United d/b/a Starbucks Workers United. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Brief of Amicus Curiae Workers United in Support of Defendant Starbuck's Motion to Dismiss)(Grant, Christopher) (Entered: 05/21/2025)

May 21, 2025

May 21, 2025

PACER
27

MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 16 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(B)(1) and (2) and for Failure to State a Claim Under Rule 12 (B)(6) filed by Plaintiff State of Missouri. (Donohue, Peter) (Entered: 05/21/2025)

May 21, 2025

May 21, 2025

PACER

A Docket Text Order

May 22, 2025

May 22, 2025

PACER

Electronic Notice of Filing Deficiency (Teams & Cape)

May 22, 2025

May 22, 2025

PACER
31

Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

May 29, 2025

May 29, 2025

PACER

A Docket Text Order with Schedules

May 29, 2025

May 29, 2025

PACER
33

Order (will rule a motion and set/satisfy a schedule)

June 2, 2025

June 2, 2025

RECAP
34

Brief - Amicus

June 2, 2025

June 2, 2025

PACER
35

Reply to Response to Motion

June 16, 2025

June 16, 2025

PACER
36

Withdraw as Attorney/Firm

Aug. 5, 2025

Aug. 5, 2025

RECAP

A Docket Text Order AND ~Util - Add and Terminate Attorneys

Aug. 6, 2025

Aug. 6, 2025

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: Missouri

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Key Dates

Filing Date: Feb. 11, 2025

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

State of Missouri

Plaintiff Type(s):

State Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Starbucks Corp. (Seattle, Washington), Private Entity/Person

Defendant Type(s):

Restaurant

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1981

State law

Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Outcome

Prevailing Party: None Yet / None

Nature of Relief:

None yet

Source of Relief:

None yet

Issues

Discrimination Area:

Hiring

Pay / Benefits

Training

Zoning

Discrimination Basis:

Race discrimination

Sex discrimination

Affected Race(s):

White

Affected Sex/Gender(s):

Male