Starbucks Corporation
36 federal employment cases from public court records (2006–2026)
17 with a published ruling · 19 open dockets
What public court records show
Public federal court records list Starbucks Corporation as an employer in 36 employment matters between 2006 and 2026.
Of the 17 matters with a recorded outcome, the most common were: 8 ended in a ruling for the employer, 3 had a mixed result, 2 were sent back to a lower court, and 2 were dismissed.
Workers obtained a favorable ruling in about 6% of matters with a recorded outcome.
The most common claims on record were Retaliation, Discrimination, and Wrongful Termination.
Cases were filed across 6 states, most often in NY.
These figures summarize publicly available U.S. federal court records only. Most workplace disputes are resolved privately and never appear in litigation. A case outcome reflects many factors and is not a finding that any employer violated the law.
Does not imply wrongdoing — many cases are dismissed or resolved without findings of liability.
About this employer
Starbucks Corporation appears in 17 federal employment-law court rulings on record. These cases sit within the hospitality sector, where wage theft, tip-pooling violations, and sexual-harassment claims are common. The set below covers rulings that produced written federal-court decisions; private settlements, EEOC charges resolved without litigation, and state-court cases are not included.
The cases primarily involve Retaliation (6 of 17), Discrimination (6 of 17), Wrongful Termination (4 of 17). Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Retaliation, Discrimination and Wrongful Termination.
Applicable statutes referenced across these rulings include: NLRA (29 U.S.C. §§ 151-169) — The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protects the rights of employees to organize, form or join labor unions, bargain collectively through representatives of their choosing, and engage in other concerted activities for mutual aid or protection. See the NLRA reference page for filing deadlines, employee thresholds, and remedies. NLRA.
Rulings span New York (5), California (4), New Jersey (1), Tennessee (1). New York is an EEOC deferral state, which extends the federal Title VII / ADA / ADEA filing deadline from 180 to 300 days. Browse state-specific employment rulings for jurisdictional patterns. New York rulings, California rulings, New Jersey rulings and Tennessee rulings.
Case Outcomes
Case Stages
The stage at which courts issued Starbucks Corporation’s 17 stage-identified rulings.
Of the 4 summary-judgment rulings, 4 ended the case in Starbucks Corporation’s favor and 0 let the worker’s claims continue.
What do these stages mean?
- Appeal
- A higher court reviewing an earlier decision. Many published opinions come from this stage, after a lot has already happened in the case.
- Summary judgment
- A ruling where the judge decides the case — or part of it — without a trial, because one side argues the key facts are not in dispute. For workers, getting past this step is often the biggest hurdle.
- Motion to dismiss
- An early request — usually by the employer — to throw the case out before any evidence is gathered.
Published federal-court opinions only — most workplace disputes are resolved privately. This is not anyone’s odds, and not a finding that any employer violated the law.
Facing something similar? Check your rights →
Claim Types
Federal cases
public court recordsOne row per case · a badge means the case reached a published ruling · plaintiff names redacted
Other Hospitality & Food Service employers
Browse rulings involving similar workplaces.
Data sourced from public federal court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes extracted using AI analysis. This information is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The presence of an employer on this page does not imply wrongdoing — many cases are dismissed or resolved without findings of liability.