Starbucks Corporation
30 distinct federal employment cases from public court records (2006–2026)
11 trusted published court opinions across 11 distinct cases
What public court records show
Public federal court records list Starbucks Corporation as an employer in 30 distinct federal employment cases between 2006 and 2026.
Of the 11 trusted published opinions analyzed, the most common outcomes were: 5 had a mixed result, 4 ended in a ruling for the employer, 1 ended in a ruling for the worker, and 1 were sent back to a lower court.
Plaintiffs won 1 of 10 adjudicated opinions (10%).
The most common claims on record were Retaliation, Wrongful Termination, and Discrimination.
Cases were filed across 7 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.
Written decisions across 11 distinct cases.
1 of 10 adjudicated opinions ended in a plaintiff win.
Does not imply wrongdoing — many cases are dismissed or resolved without findings of liability.
Jurisdictions represented in the analyzed opinions.
About this employer
Starbucks Corporation appears in 11 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
Starbucks v. NLRB (2026) — Defendant Win. Starbucks was accused of retaliating against workers who tried to organize a union. Specifically, the company obtained legal documents (subpoenas) in a way that workers claimed was meant to intimidate them and interfere with their union activities. Read the ruling.
NLRB v. Starbucks Corp (2024) — Mixed Result. Starbucks fired and reduced the hours of two employees who were trying to organize a labor union at their location. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a government agency that protects workers' rights, sued Starbucks, claiming the company punished these workers for their organizing activities. Read the ruling.
M.H. v. Starbucks Coffee Company (2024) — Mixed Result. A Starbucks employee filed a lawsuit claiming she experienced harassment and was subjected to a hostile work environment. She also argued that Starbucks was negligent in supervising its managers and in hiring and retaining certain employees. Read the ruling.
The published opinions primarily involve Retaliation (7 of 11), Wrongful Termination (3 of 11), Discrimination (2 of 11). Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Retaliation, Wrongful Termination and Discrimination.
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.
Published opinions span New York (4), California (1), New Jersey (1), Washington (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 Washington rulings.
These published opinions sit within the hospitality sector, where wage theft, tip-pooling violations, and sexual-harassment claims are common.
Opinion Outcomes
Opinion Stages
11 analyzed opinions have a classified procedural stage.
Of the 2 summary-judgment opinions, 2 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
What these numbers mean
A case is one lawsuit, identified by its court and docket number. The docket is the running court record for that same case — it is not an extra case.
A published opinion or ruling is a written court decision. One case can produce several opinions, so opinion counts and case counts answer different questions. Only trusted, reportable opinions are used in the outcome statistics on this page.
Docket entries are the individual filings inside a case — motions, orders, scheduling notices. We read them to confirm a case is real and to see where it got to, but an entry is never counted as a case or as an outcome. A single case can generate hundreds of entries.
Far fewer opinions than cases is normal. Many employment cases settle privately or close without a published opinion. No opinion here does not mean the worker lost; it means this public record does not show a reportable result.
Everything on this page comes from public federal court records. Where we are not confident a record is accurate, we leave it out rather than guess.
Federal court cases
public court recordsOne row per court+docket case · written opinions stay grouped inside their case · plaintiff names redacted
Other Hospitality & Food Service employers
Browse trusted published opinions 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.