Reuters Blogs

Shop Talk

Retailers, consumers and prices

20:37 December 11th, 2008

Lawsuit against Starbucks goes up in smoke

Posted by: Gina Keating
Tags: Shop Talk, , , , ,

STARBUCKS/Uh, dude, you forgot something.

That was essentially the message from a California appeals court to a group of unsuccessful Starbucks applicants who sued the Seattle-based coffee chain over its job application, which they claimed asked an illegal question about marijuana convictions.

California law bars employers from asking job applicants to disclose marijuana convictions that are more than two years old, and Starbucks’ application asks for seven years’ worth of criminal history.

The spurned baristas contended they and the 135,000 others who didn’t make the cut were entitled to $200 each for filling out the tainted application.  Citing potential damages that could run as high as $26 million, the company tried and failed to have the case thrown out, then appealed.

While criticizing Starbucks for placing a disclaimer describing the California law on the back of its NETHERLANDSapplication in tiny type, the appeals court nevertheless made a critical finding that killed the case — none of the plaintiffs had marijuana-related convictions and two had never even smoked pot.

Oops.

One comment so far

Duhhh, but, I bet if they were tested, they’d a been had…ooops, wait, they were just a bunch of those nutty California liberals always wanting someone else to pay their way thru life and get the governement for something they don’t like about it.

- Posted by deb

Post Your Comment

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word

House Rules:
  • We moderate all comments and will publish everything that advances the post directly or with relevant tangential information
  • We try not to publish comments that we think are offensive or appear to pass you off as another person, and we will be conservative if comments may be considered libelous information.