The state of Missouri is opposing Starbucks' motion to dismiss an anti-DEI discrimination lawsuit that it filed against the company. According to the state, it has alleged sufficient evidence of discrimination against its citizens to overcome dismissal. The case is State of Missouri v. Starbucks Corp., Case Number 4:25-cv-00165, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Missouri claims that Starbucks' national hiring practices have resulted in adverse employment actions against applicants and workers in the state based on their race and gender. The state maintains that the coffee chain's hiring practices include racial and gender quotas that violate Title VII, Section 1981, and the Missouri Human Rights Act. Based on this evidence, which it detailed in its complaint, Missouri alleges that it has sufficient jurisdiction to proceed with the suit.
The state of Missouri filed suit against Starbucks in February 2025, targeting the company's hiring goals to fill at least 30% of certain positions and 40% of other roles with people of color, as well as 55% of retail roles with women. Moreover, Starbucks ties its executive compensation to meeting diversity quotas. Due to these policies, Missouri alleges that the company has denied white men access to jobs and mentorship programs at the more than 200 stores, which employ thousands of workers, located in the state.
In April, Starbucks filed a motion to dismiss Missouri's complaint, arguing that the state lacks evidence of any harm to Missouri citizens resulting from its diversity policies. This lack of harm, the company reasons, means the state lacks jurisdiction to pursue its complaint. Starbucks also notes that only the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the U.S. attorney general are authorized to prosecute violations of Title VII, not state attorneys general. Nonetheless, Missouri claims that its state attorney general may invoke the anti-bias provisions of Title VII because the term "persons" in the law who are "claiming to be aggrieved" includes governments.
Starbucks also argued that the number of Missourians affected by the policies at issue is too small to confer standing. However, Missouri countered that the U.S. Supreme Court previously found that Puerto Rico had jurisdiction to pursue a constitutional challenge affecting about 800 people.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
