Dive Brief:
- A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by Missouri’s attorney general claiming that Starbucks’ diversity, equity and inclusion programs discriminated on the basis of race and sex, according to a Thursday decision.
- Judge John Ross of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri held that the attorney general’s office lacked standing to bring the claims while the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear them. Additionally, Ross found that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
- “We plan to continue aggressively pursuing this case and other instances where companies have race-and-sex-based hiring practices in violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act,” a spokesperson for the Missouri attorney general’s office told HR Dive in an email. Starbucks did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Dive Insight:
Ultimately, Ross said that although Missouri sought to challenge Starbucks’ implementation of DEI policies, it could not do so “under the minimum allegations presented.”
For example, the judge found the harms allegedly caused by the policies — e.g., that Starbucks set race-and-sex-based hiring and retention quotas or that it tied executive pay to meeting such quotas — to be “conclusory,” noting that some of the stated hiring goals had already been met at the time of their announcement and before the implementation of any employment decisions, adverse or otherwise.
Elsewhere, Ross took issue with Missouri’s arguments that the policies in question would affect consumers.
The state claimed, for instance, that consumers may need to pay higher costs in order to absorb those incurred by Starbucks due to the hiring, training and correcting of unqualified employees. Such speculative harms fall short in part due to a lack of any factual allegations establishing that the policies were actually implemented in Missouri, per the decision, and the state lacked standing to bring such claims.
“Plaintiff fails to allege any actual adverse employment action undertaken as a result of unlawful discrimination, and the policies and goals described do not confer employment opportunities to one protected class at the expense or to the exclusion of another,” Ross held. “For all of these reasons, this case must be dismissed.”
The Starbucks case represents one of several efforts by state and federal agencies to crack down on corporate DEI programs. Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway announced a separate lawsuit this week against the state’s High School Activities Association for allegedly discriminating against a nominee for a leadership position on the basis of race and sex.
At the federal level, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission continues to pursue enforcement against discriminatory DEI programs. The agency asked a federal court to enforce an administrative subpoena against Nike on Wednesday as part of an investigation into alleged anti-White bias at the retail giant.
Early last year, President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing his administration to prepare a report on ending private-sector DEI programs. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held in favor of the White House on Friday in a lawsuit brought by multiple plaintiffs that sought to enjoin the order.