Florida AG Files Complaint Calling for Investigation into Starbuck’s Race-Based Quota Hiring Policy

A Starbucks sign hangs outside a Starbucks coffee shop in downtown Pittsburgh on June 26, 2019. Gene J. Puskar/AP Photo

Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody is calling for an investigation into the hiring practices of Starbucks Coffee Company, which appear to discriminate on the basis of race.

The complaint—filed May 22 with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR)—argues that Starbucks’ publicly available policies appear to be racial quotas and set specific employment goals based on race.

FCHR—created by the Florida Legislature in 1969 to enforce the Florida Civil Rights Act—prevents unlawful employment discrimination based on “race, color, religion, sex, disability, national origin, age, and marital status.” It also ensures that access to housing is free of discrimination based on “race, color, national origin, sex, disability, pregnancy, religion and familial status.”

Ms. Moody said that concerns raised by Starbucks race-based quota policies are sufficient enough that the agency should investigate to ensure that Florida’s laws prohibiting discrimination were being upheld.

“The bottom line is hiring practices using race-based quotas are illegal,” Ms. Moody said in a press release, adding that the company has published publicly available policies that raise sufficient concerns that it is using a quota system, and that executive compensation is tied to that system. Because of this, she argues that the FCHR is obligated to investigate to ensure that Florida civil rights laws are not being violated.

Starbucks contends that its goal is to improve its efforts to reach a “broader pool of candidates“ who will bring new perspectives and experiences that will improve its business and workplace environment.

“To do this, we are prioritizing inclusivity in our recruitment practices, partner engagement, and continuing to provide opportunities for inclusive leadership training,” the company stated.

Ms. Moody’s complaint cites the December 2023 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College.

Plaintiffs argued that Harvard’s consideration of race at every step of its admissions process is what determines how a significant percentage of African American and Hispanic applicants are admitted.

In writing the opinion for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said, “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.”

Starbucks and DEI

According to publicly available policies, Starbucks set its annual inclusion and diversity goals in October 2020 based on retention rates and progress toward, achieving representation rates of black, indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) of at least 30 percent at all corporate levels and at least 40 percent at all retail and manufacturing roles by 2025.

Starbucks then pledged “new representation goals” in February 2020 for a minimum goal of 40 percent people of color and 55 percent women in all retail roles, and a minimum goal of 50 percent women and 30 percent people of color for all enterprise roles, by 2025.

Starbucks asked former Attorney General Eric Holder to conduct its first-ever “Examination“ of the company’s ”commitment to civil rights, equity, diversity, and inclusion” in 2019.

“To be clear, racial bias in public accommodations is not simply Starbucks’ problem. It is an American problem,” Mr. Holder wrote. “Creating lasting change will require a commitment from the entire business community, the government, and others in the public sector, and every one of us as individuals to recognize and address the socioeconomic and racial challenges facing our communities, and to examine—and confront—our own biases, regardless of the color of our skin.”

Mr. Holder said in his subsequent 2020 report that the company had made “significant progress.” In 2021, despite the challenges of COVID-19, he said he was “pleased to report that Starbucks’ commitment to promoting equity, diversity, and inclusion has endured and that a strong foundation exists for continued progress in the years to come.

The company also regularly publishes its employee data by race.

While there has only been a .1 percent increase in black retail employees over the past three years, the level of Hispanic employees has risen over four percent. In the meantime, the number of white employees has fallen more than five percent.

In 2020, when Starbucks established its DEI goals, the company’s retail employees were 8 percent black, 26.9 percent Hispanic, and 53.5 percent white.

In 2023, only 8.1 percent of Starbucks retail employees were black, 31.7 percent were Hispanic, and 48.1 percent were white.

The company also admits that Starbucks executives have compensation tied to DEI objectives.

At its annual meeting in March, 92 percent of Starbucks shareholders approved a new pay structure, reversing a 2023 policy that tied 7.5 percent of an executive’s bonus to the company’s DEI goals, Bloomberg Law reported, and substituting a more general workforce target. The vote is technically nonbinding to company policy.

In August 2022, the National Center for Public Policy Research filed a similar lawsuit against Starbucks, arguing that the company’s efforts to increase the number of non-white workers violated U.S. and state civil rights laws.

In June 2023, Starbucks filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which was granted by the Federal Court of the Eastern District of Washington in August 2023.

‘Strong Evidence of Discriminatory Intent’

GianCarlo Canaparo is a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. His research focuses primarily on constitutional and administrative law, particularly related to equal protection, civil rights, and the rule of law.

In an interview with The Epoch Times, Mr. Canaparo said the investigation will focus on intent, rather than actions.

Mr. Canaparo said cases such as this are “evidence-heavy.”

While setting goals in of itself is not unlawful, he said it can be probative of discriminatory intent.

“If the goals are set with the intent to have more black people apply for jobs, to be given equal consideration as white people applying for the same jobs, there isn’t a problem,” he explained. “However, if they are having trouble finding enough black applicants to fill positions and start using race as a preference in hiring to meet those goals, that is illegal.”

He also said that the public statements Starbucks has issued about the targets its is setting will be used as strong evidence of discriminatory intent, which he said would be a Title VII violation.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that it is unlawful for an employer to not hire or to let go of an employee because of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

It is also unlawful for an employer to segregate, classify or limit the number of employees or applicants on the basis of those same factors.

“What [the] Title VII act is all about is not the results you reach, but the actions that you take and the intent with which you take them,” Mr. Canaparo said, explaining that intentionally giving someone preferential or detrimental treatment based on their race, ethnicity, or sex—whether the effort is successful or not—is unlawful.

Public statements clarifying the specific racial quotas the company wants to achieve “looks to me like strong evidence of discriminatory intent,” Mr. Canaparo said.

The Epoch Times reached out to Starbucks and to the Florida Commission on Human Relations for comment.