Starbucks ordered to pay $25.6m in racial discrimination case
Starbucks, the popular coffee chain, has been ordered to pay $25.6m in a racial discrimination case. The case was filed by Shannon Phillips, a former manager who was fired after two black men were arrested at a Starbucks branch in Philadelphia in 2018. The incident led to large protests, and a black colleague of Phillips kept his job. A federal jury in New Jersey found that Starbucks had violated Phillips’s federal civil rights and a New Jersey law that prohibits discrimination based on race.
The incident occurred when one of two black men waiting in the shop was reportedly denied permission to use the toilet because he had not bought anything. The men were waiting for a business meeting and refused to leave, leading staff to call the police. The men were handcuffed and escorted from the café, and their arrests were captured on video and shared online. The incident led to protests, and Starbucks closed all of its 8,000 stores in the US for a day to hold anti-bias training for workers.
Phillips sued Starbucks in 2019, accusing them of wrongful termination and unfairly punishing white employees like her in response to the arrests. Her lawyers argued that the upper management of Starbucks were « looking for a ‘scapegoat’ to terminate to show action was being taken ». The jury ruled that race was a factor in Phillips’s sacking, violating anti-discrimination laws. Starbucks was ordered to pay $600,000 in compensatory damages and $25m in punitive damages.
Implications of the ruling
The ruling against Starbucks highlights the importance of anti-discrimination laws and the need for companies to take proactive steps to prevent discrimination. The case also raises questions about how companies should respond to incidents of discrimination and whether they should hold all employees accountable, regardless of their race. Starbucks’s decision to close all of its stores for anti-bias training is an example of a proactive step that companies can take to address discrimination.
The ruling may also have financial implications for Starbucks and other companies. The $25.6m payout is a significant amount, and it may encourage other employees who have experienced discrimination to file lawsuits against the company. The case may also damage Starbucks’s reputation and lead to a loss of customers.
In conclusion, the ruling against Starbucks in the racial discrimination case is a reminder of the importance of anti-discrimination laws and the need for companies to take proactive steps to prevent discrimination. The case highlights the challenges that companies face in responding to incidents of discrimination and the need to hold all employees accountable. The financial implications of the ruling may also have a significant impact on Starbucks and other companies.
Keywords: Starbucks, racial discrimination, lawsuit, anti-discrimination laws, compensatory damages, punitive damages, Philadelphia, protests, anti-bias training, reputation.