New Lawsuit Challenges Starbucks’ DEI Policy – 5 Keys to Watch

President Trump’s anti-DEI initiatives have moved into the private sector. First up: Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has filed a lawsuit against Starbucks, alleging the company’s DEI policy illegally favors women and people of color.

According to the complaint, Starbucks violated state and federal law by discriminating against individuals on the basis of their race and sex.

How Trump’s DEI Agenda Can Affect the Private Sector

This case comes just a few weeks after President Donald Trump’s efforts to dismantle DEI programs through a slew of executive orders issued when he returned to the White House.

In a detailed analysis of one executive order on DEI initiatives, we outlined the potential implications of the Trump administration’s DEI agenda for private companies. 

This lawsuit against Starbucks is one of the first examples – making it especially noteworthy.

Relevant here, Trump’s executive orders refer to DEI initiatives as “illegal,” but they never actually define an “illegal DEI policy.”

Following this case can help HR professionals determine how and where to set parameters for DEI policy and programs, and stay in compliance.

Lawsuit: 5 Problems In Starbucks’ DEI Policy

The lawsuit alleges Starbucks’ commitment to its DEI policy and programs is merely a “pretext for its actual commitment to unlawful discrimination.” 

Specifically, the lawsuit takes issue with the following elements of Starbucks’ DEI policy and practices: 

• The company’s investments in strategic partnerships with professional organizations that focus on the development of BIPOC (defined by Starbucks as “Black, Indigenous and People of Color”) talent and its mentorship program that connects BIPOC partners to senior leaders.
• The company’s commitment to disclosing data that highlights the diversity of its workforce.
• The company’s decision to set and track annual DEI goals of achieving BIPOC representation of at least 30% at corporate levels and at least 40% at retail and manufacturing roles by 2025.
• The company’s commitment to tying executive compensation to the achievement of DEI goals.
• The company’s commitment to establishing a DEI “Executive Council” to provide internal governance to integrate DEI throughout the company.

DEI Policy Allegedly Amounts to Race, Sex Discrimination

The lawsuit alleges Starbucks engaged in unlawful employment practices, including hiring, firing and discriminatory practices, under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) and analogous state laws.

According to the complaint, Starbucks discriminates on the basis of race and sex by giving preference to:

• BIPOC employees and applicants
• female employees and applicants, and
• “non-heterosexual employees and applicants” under “the rationale of Bostock.” 

The suit seeks an order “compelling Starbucks to end its discriminatory patterns and practices.”

Reviewing the EEOC Acting Chair’s Comments on DEI

The complaint notes that two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down affirmative action in higher education, leaving employers wondering what the ruling meant for DEI policy and programs.

After the Court’s decision was announced, then-Commissioner Andrea Lucas – who has since been appointed Acting Chair of the EEOC – said the ruling should be a “wake-up call for employers … to take a hard look at the lawfulness of their corporate diversity programs.” 

In an interview with Fox News, Lucas also confirmed her belief that the ruling would increase the number of challenges to companies’ DEI policy and programs.

Moreover, in the interview, Lucas clarified that she wasn’t criticizing all diversity programs. What matters, Lucas explained, is how DEI programs are structured. She listed red flags in DEI programs, like “race-restricted internships, race-restricted mentoring, race-focused promotion decisions, etc.” Lucas said that the key is not to use race as a factor in employment decisions.

It’s important to remember that Lucas made these remarks approximately two years ago, so her views on DEI may have shifted in light of President Trump’s agenda outlined in his executive orders.

We’ll keep you posted.

Missouri v. Starbucks Corp., No. 4:25-cv-00165 (E.D. Mo. filed 2/11/25).