A Case Study of Missouri v. Starbucks Corp. and the Compliance Challenges Ahead
The Missouri Attorney General’s Office recently learned this lesson in Missouri v. Starbucks Corp., when its Title VII anti-DEI case against Starbucks was dismissed by a federal district court judge.
The court found that the Missouri Attorney General’s allegations alluding to harm to Missourians due to Starbucks’ DEI program fell far short of establishing discrimination or injury to its citizens. The court put it bluntly: “[i]t is unclear from the complaint whether any Missourian has actually been injured by Defendant’s practices. Plaintiff did not point to even a single Missouri resident who lacked Starbucks’ preferred racial or sex characteristics and suffered an adverse employment action as a result.” Missouri v. Starbucks Corp. may serve as a cautionary tale of state government overreach when the facts, as alleged, do not demonstrate a violation of the law.
Missouri’s Broad Claims About DEI Policies
By way of background, in 2025, the Missouri Attorney General (AG), on behalf of the State of Missouri, sued Starbucks over its DEI employment policies, practices, and programs under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §1981, and the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA). Title VII, like the MHRA, prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the bases of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
The Missouri AG claimed that Starbucks’ DEI initiatives, adopted in 2020, violated federal and state statutory laws that prohibit discrimination. As alleged in the complaint, those initiatives included mentorship and professional development programs for employees,
The District Court’s Analysis: No Actual Injury Means No Case
Peeling back the layers, the court ultimately determined that the Missouri AG’s claims of discrimination failed. While the Missouri AG claimed that Starbucks’ workforce had “ha[d] become more female and less white” as a result of the company’s DEI initiatives, the court noted that “this correlation alone does not raise an inference of causation. Without any allegation whatsoever that an adverse action was taken to get to this more female and less white workforce, Plaintiff’s allegations do not establish that discrimination actually took place.” The court emphasized that the “mere existence of a diversity policy, without more, is insufficient to make out a prima facie case of discrimination under federal employment statutes like Title VII.”
Notably, the court rejected the fundamental underpinning of the Missouri AG’s theory of discrimination—that DEI leads to the hiring of unqualified workers, which harms the state of Missouri. The court did not mince words:
This allegation that DEI policies (assuming such policies were even implemented in Missouri) will necessarily lead to hiring unqualified workers and will necessarily raise prices for consumers is entirely speculative and conclusory. Even if these indirect economic effects were within the realm of reason to assume, they fall short of plausible without any factual allegations establishing that Defendant’s DEI policies were actually practiced in Missouri in a way that did lead to the presumed skew in prices, wait times, and product quality. An injury to any specific Missourian cannot be reasonably inferred from the facts alleged here without any allegations regarding whether or how Defendant’s allegedly discriminatory policies were practiced in Missouri.
Lessons and Implications
Missouri v. Starbucks Corp. teaches us that a state’s use of its authority to enforce anti-discrimination laws to challenge private employers’ DEI initiatives will likely require facts demonstrating actual, concrete, adverse impact to withstand judicial scrutiny, at least for now. The Missouri Attorney General has filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, so the ultimate outcome of the case is yet to be determined. The mere existence of a DEI policy, without more, will not make out a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII. Unsupportable assumptions that DEI initiatives produce unqualified workers or have an adverse impact on the majority population without demonstrable facts may suffer defeat in court.
To be clear, the court’s holding in Missouri v. Starbucks Corp. does not extend to individual Title VII lawsuits. The court did not address the impact of this decision on suits seeking individual relief for alleged discriminatory treatment. (“If individuals in Missouri do exist who have been personally discriminated against by Defendant, they are free to redress those injuries in their own individual lawsuits.”). Individual claims of discrimination based on facts that demonstrate some discrete harm in the terms and conditions of employment are likely to survive dismissal. See Muldrow v. City of St. Louis.
For example, just this month in Massey v. Borough of Bergenfield, the Third Circuit reversed the dismissal of a white male’s race and religious discrimination claims. These claims stemmed from Massey’s allegation that he was not promoted in favor of a minority male due to his race and religion. In its decision, the Third Circuit highlighted the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Servs., which equalized the burden of proof for individuals like Massey seeking relief under Title VII regardless of their status as a member of a majority or minority group. Massey’s employer attempted to justify its promotion of the minority employee in part by pointing to its Recruitment/Equal Employment Opportunity policy. The court found that the policy was not a valid affirmative action plan designed to remediate racial imbalances with standards to achieve the employer’s equal employment opportunity goals.
So, What Does All of This Mean for Employers?
Withstanding challenges to DEI policies, practices, or programs in federal or state court can be difficult in this new legal landscape. Employers who pursue equal employment opportunity goals will want to do so in ways that do not run afoul of the law.
While Starbucks was able to weather the storm of a state anti-DEI challenge in federal district court, employers must be mindful that the federal government, including the U.S. Department of Justice and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), has broad authority to investigate and enforce federal civil rights laws. The EEOC has made full use of that authority and has made it known that it will continue to prioritize this issue, so employers should proactively review their employment policies, procedures, and practices to avoid potential exposure to Title VII investigations, enforcement, and lawsuits.
Federal grantees and contractors may be even more vulnerable, particularly in light of the Fourth Circuit’s recent opinion in Nat’l Ass’n of Diversity Officers in Higher Educ. v. Trump, which found, in part, that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed in facially challenging President Donald Trump’s DEI Executive Orders impacting federal grantees and contractors. Consistent with the President’s Executive Orders, the General Service Administration (GSA) has also proposed a rule that would require federal recipients of aid to essentially certify that their DEI programs do not discriminate.
Whether it’s individual suits, government investigations, regulatory certifications, or other DEI-related enforcement efforts, we’re staying abreast of changes in the law and can help employers navigate the complex maze of state and federal compliance with anti-discrimination laws. The threat of litigation should not have a chilling effect on employers who are committed to DEI as a core value of their mission. Employers that embrace DEI, like Starbucks, can legally weather the storm that lies ahead. And the facts will always matter.
Danielle E. Montero and Elizabeth A. Ledkovsky contributed to this article.
