Case 1:21-cv-04869-AT-WEJ Document 1 Filed 11/29/21 Page 1 of 33
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
`ATLANTA DIVISION
`
`
`
`MARKEL ODEN, individually and
`On behalf of all others similarly
`situated,
`
`
`Plaintiff
`
`V.
`
`
`STARBUCKS CORPORATION.
`
`
`
` COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION
`
` CASE NO.:
`
`Defendant
`___________________________________.
`
`
`COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Individual and Representative Plaintiff, MARKEL ODEN ("Plaintiff" or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`"Oden"), on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, alleges, upon
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`personal knowledge as to himself and upon information and belief as to other
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`matters, as follows:
`
`SUMMARY OF THE CLAIMS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1. This is a class and collective action brought by former employee of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant
`
`
`
` Starbucks
`
`
`
` Corporation
`
`
`
` alleging
`
`
`
` violations
`
`
`
` of
`
`
`
` the
`
`
`
` Age
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621,
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-04869-AT-WEJ Document 1 Filed 11/29/21 Page 2 of 33
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`et seq. ("ADEA") as well as The Georgia Age Discrimination Act, GA Code
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Sec. 34-1-2.
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT STARBUCKS.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2. Defendant operates as the World's largest coffee shop chain (wiki) with 8941
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`stores in the US as of 2020 as per the corporate 10k annual report for 2020.
`
`3. Starbucks Corporation is a Washington state, for profit Corporation with
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`principal offices located at 2401 UTAH AVE S MS: S-LA1 SUITE 800
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SEATTLE, WA 98134 and may be served at the same address to its
`
`
`
`
`
`registered agent, SR. VP and Chief Legal Officer, Scott Kizer, Esq.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4. Defendant’s revenues topped $26 billion dollars in 2019 and 23.5 Billion
`
`
`
`dollars in 2020.
`
`
`
`5. Defendant also employed 349,000 employees as of 2021.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6. At all times material hereto, Starbucks is and was Plaintiff’s Employer
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`within the meaning under the ADEA, and The Georgia Age Discrimination
`
`
`
`Act, GA Code Sec. 34-1-2.
`
`DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-04869-AT-WEJ Document 1 Filed 11/29/21 Page 3 of 33
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7. STARBUCKS’ culture and practices have the benefits of its enormous
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`success unequally, systematically favoring younger applicants at the expense
`
`
`
`of their older counterparts.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8. Upon information and belief, individuals 40 years of age and older are rarely
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`being offered STORE MANAGER positions, whether by application from
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`persons outside the company or from internal applications from employees
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`seeking promotion from within related to posted openings.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9. As of November 2, 2021, Defendant has posted 429 store manager openings
`
`
`
`and 382 Assistant Store Manager openings.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Over the last 5 or more years, Starbucks has engaged in a targeted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`systematic scheme to eliminate and terminate as many of its older workers
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`as possible and become younger in its staffed workforce.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11.Back in 2018, the Huffington Post reported that numerous employees had
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`claimed that Starbucks was in fact discriminating against older workers.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`https://www.huffpost.com/entry/starbucks-age-discrimination_n_5b204db9e
`
`4b0adfb826eec77 .
`
`12.Starbucks also has been found to have had discriminatory employment
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`practices towards African Americans, and even settled with the EEOC in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2021).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-04869-AT-WEJ Document 1 Filed 11/29/21 Page 4 of 33
`
`https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/31/starbucks-reaches-deal-with-eeoc-over-al
`
`leged-racial-discrimination.html ;
`
`https://www.seattletimes.com/business/starbucks-reaches-agreement-with-ee
`
`oc-over-alleged-bias-in-promotions/ .
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13.The Huffington Post spoke with 7 Starbucks managers — both current and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`former — across five different states who told of similar experiences. These
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`managers all claim that they were the victims of a campaign of management
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`bullying, and several of whom claim they were either pushed out or fired for
`
`
`
`one simple violation: being older than 40.
`
`STARBUCKS’ PRACTICES AND TREATMENT OF OLDER WORKERS
`
`
`
`
`
`14.Starbucks, upon information, has disturbingly terminated a high percentage
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of its older workers over the age of 40, as compared to its employees under
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`40, including many employees who had long standing careers with the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`company, and who did not have a history of written disciplinary action,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`including Plaintiff and others similarly situated, in an effort to obtain a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`younger workforce.
`
`
`
`15.Upon information and belief, during the period of 2013 to the present,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Starbucks terminated many persons over the age of 40, and continues this
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`practice to the present without providing them the same progressive
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-04869-AT-WEJ Document 1 Filed 11/29/21 Page 5 of 33
`
`
`
`disciplinary
`
`
`
` policies
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` and practices younger employees and all other
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`employees are eligible for.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16.Upon information and belief, numerous manager employees over 40 have
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`similarly been terminated across the U.S. during this same time frame and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`continuing to the present; and Starbucks is no stranger to similar claims of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`age discrimination by former employees.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17.Further, Defendant maintained a de facto policy of hiring younger managers,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and upon information and belief, in fact replaced Oden with a store manager
`
`believed to be in the age range of 20’s or 30’s.
`
`18.Upon information and belief, Defendant never provided any opportunity to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`older employees, those over 40 or to applicants for the Store Manager
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`position when replacing Plaintiff and excluded older workers and persons
`
`
`
`from any real consideration for this position.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19.This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over the ADEA claims
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and Section 7(c) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. §
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`626(c).
`
`
`
`20.This
`
`
`
` Court
`
`
`
` has
`
`
`
` supplemental
`
`
`
` jurisdiction
`
`
`
` over
`
`
`
` The
`
`
`
` Georgia
`
`
`
` Age
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Discrimination Act, GA Code Sec. 34-1-2 claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-04869-AT-WEJ Document 1 Filed 11/29/21 Page 6 of 33
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1367, because they arise from a common nucleus of operative facts with the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`federal claims and are so related to the federal claims as to form part of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`21.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia has
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`personal jurisdiction over STARBUCKS because the company does business
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`in Georgia and in this District, and because the acts complained of and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`giving rise to the alleged claims, occurred in and emanated from this
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`District.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`22.Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`District.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`23.Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies and complied with all
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`statutory prerequisites to his ADEA claims.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Oden filed a charge of age
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`discrimination on or about September 4, 2021, with the Equal Employment
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). More than 60 days has passed since he
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`filed the charge and Plaintiff may thus commence with filing this action
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 626(d)(1).
`
`24.Any and all other prerequisites to the filing of this suit have been met.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-04869-AT-WEJ Document 1 Filed 11/29/21 Page 7 of 33
`
`25.This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and the Georgia Class Action under The Georgia Age Discrimination Act,
`
`
`
`
`
`GA Code Sec. 34-1-2.
`
`PARTIES
`
`PLAINTIFF MARKEL ODEN
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`26.Plaintiff had been employed by STARBUCKS from 04/07/2016 but suffered
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`an adverse employment action when he was terminated from his position as
`
`
`
`
`
`the STORE MANAGER, on or about July 7, 2021.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`27. Plaintiff resides in Fulton, County Florida, and at all times material, was a
`
`
`
`
`
`store
`
` manager
`
` working
`
`
`
` at
`
`
`
` a
`
`
`
` Starbucks
`
`
`
` store
`
`
`
` located
`
`
`
` at
`
`
`
` 10800
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ALPHARETTA HWY ROSWELL, GA 30076.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`28.Oden is nearly 60 years of age, currently 59, and his District Manager, his
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`superior, Jessica Graves, is believed to be in her 30’s.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`29.Graves' profile indicates she was promoted from a store manager position in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2019,
`
`
`
` after
`
`
`
` just
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
` years
`
`
`
` as
`
`
`
` a
`
`
`
` store
`
`
`
` manager.
`
`
`
` See
`
`https://www.linkedin.com/in/jgraves3/
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`30.Oden was never given any opportunity to interview for the District Manager
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`position when it was clearly open in 2019, despite the fact that he had been a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-04869-AT-WEJ Document 1 Filed 11/29/21 Page 8 of 33
`
`
`
`store
`
`
`
` manager
`
`
`
` for
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
` years
`
`
`
` as
`
`
`
` well,
`
`discriminating against older workers.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` another example of Starbucks
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`31.Prior to being terminated, Oden had not been formally written up or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`disciplined for any reasons, and his last annual job review was excellent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`32.However, Oden was placed under the supervision of a new District Manager,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`who was substantially younger than him and under the age of 40.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`33.Oden was terminated without warning, and without being placed on any PIP.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Moreover, he was never offered any alternative of a lower level position
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`such as an ASM, or even just a barista or offered any demotion as an
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`alternative or option for termination of his employment.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`34.After Defendant Starbucks terminated Oden, upon information and belief a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`store manager under the age of 40 was hired to replace him.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`35.Oden’s last salary as a full-time employee in the position of Store Manager
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`was $80,000 in addition to earning quarterly bonus opportunities in the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`range of $3000 per quarter.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`36.At the time of his termination, Oden was not on any Performance
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Improvement Plan (PIP), and had not been written up in the past 3 to 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`years, or more, preceding his termination.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-04869-AT-WEJ Document 1 Filed 11/29/21 Page 9 of 33
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`37.Oden was not given any poor performance reviews or placed on any PIP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`prior to being demoted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`38.Oden was not given any opportunity to engage management in the alleged
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`misconduct or reasons for his termination, and instead was handed a “death
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`sentence” of termination of his employment immediately despite years of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`favorable performance.
`
`GENERAL FACT ALLEGATIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`39.Starbucks has spearheaded a blatant campaign of age discrimination in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`hiring since 2015 under the auspices of The 100,000 Opportunities Initiative,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`which includes many of our nation’s largest corporations (i.e. Walmart,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Microsoft,CVS).
`
`https://stories.starbucks.com/press/2018/us-companies-and-foundations-con
`
`necting-atlanta-youth-to-jobs/
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`40.Plaintiff’s superior, Jessica Graves accused Plaintiff of himself being
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`discriminatory.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`41.Upon information and belief, Graves and Starbucks failed to perform any
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`actual or real investigation, not interviewing all available witnesses and not
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`even considering any statements or response from Oden related to the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`accusations.
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-04869-AT-WEJ Document 1 Filed 11/29/21 Page 10 of 33
`
`
`
`42.Plaintiff
`
`
`
` was
`
`
`
` not
`
`
`
`employee.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` actually or knowingly discriminatory towards any
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`43.Graves and Starbucks were motivated by their desire and by company de
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Facto policy to weed out older store managers and promote a younger, more
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vibrant appearance.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`44.Oden was notified of an alleged investigation about him, but within 2 weeks,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`was merely informed that he was terminated without any real discussion or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`opportunity to be heard.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`45.Upon information and belief, Starbucks has a history of seeking to terminate
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and force out older workers, and upon information and belief, some of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`whom likewise filed charges with the EEOC for age discrimination.
`
`COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`46.Plaintiff Oden brings this collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 216(b),
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`626(b) seeking liability-phase injunctive and declaratory relief and damages
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`on behalf of a collective of all applicants and deterred prospective applicants
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`for the Covered Positions ages 40 and older in the United States at any time
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`from November 5, 2019, through the resolution of this action for claims
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`under the ADEA, and all those persons in management over the age of 40
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`who were terminated from management positions.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-04869-AT-WEJ Document 1 Filed 11/29/21 Page 11 of 33
`
`THE PROPOSED PUTATIVE CLASS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`All persons over the age of 40 previously employed by STARBUCKS in the
`
`
`United States and its territories, and whose employment with STARBUCKS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`was terminated during the period of November 4, 2019, through the present,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`in the positions of Store Manager or other persons in management or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`supervisory positions, or who, as employees, were denied promotions, or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`alternative open and posted positions they applied for within the company.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`47.Plaintiff also brings this collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 216(b),
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`626(b) or monetary damages and other make-whole relief on behalf of a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`collective of all applicants and deterred prospective applicants for the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Covered Positions ages 40 and older in the United States and its territories at
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`any time from November 5th, 2019, through the resolution of this action for
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`claims under the ADEA.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`48.Plaintiff, and other potential members of the collective, are similarly situated
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`in that they have all sought and been denied, or were deterred from applying
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`for, the Covered Positions at STARBUCKS by policies and practices that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`have the purpose and effect of denying them employment opportunities
`
`
`
`because of their age.
`
`
`
`49.Similarly, Plaintiff and other potential members of the collective are
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`similarly situated in that they have all been intentionally terminated and/or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`constructively terminated from their employment by STARBUCKS, or
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-04869-AT-WEJ Document 1 Filed 11/29/21 Page 12 of 33
`
`demoted from Covered Positions at STARBUCKS because of intentional,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and unlawful discriminatory policies and practices to target and eliminate
`
`
`
`older workers from its workforce.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`50.There are many similarly situated collective members who would benefit
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`from the issuance of a court-supervised notice of the present lawsuit and the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`opportunity to join the present lawsuit.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Notice should be sent to the
`
`
`
`
`
`collective pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 216(b), 626(b).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`51.As part of its regular business practice, Defendant has intentionally,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`willfully, and repeatedly engaged in a pattern, practice, and/or policy of
`
`
`
`violating the ADEA with respect to Plaintiff and the collective.
`
`52.This policy and pattern or practice includes, but is not limited to:
`
`
`
`a. willfully
`
`
`
` utilizing
`
`
`
` a
`
`
`
` biased
`
`
`
` recruiting
`
`
`
` system
`
`
`
` for
`
`
`
` entry-level
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`accounting hiring that excludes, deters, and discriminates against
`
`
`
`
`
`workers ages 40 and over;
`
`b. willfully implementing a mandatory early retirement policy that deters
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and discriminates against applicants ages 40 and over for the Covered
`
`
`
`
`
`Positions;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`c. willfully refusing to hire applicants ages 40 and over for the Covered
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Positions.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-04869-AT-WEJ Document 1 Filed 11/29/21 Page 13 of 33
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`53.Starbucks maintained and implemented these policies and practices with the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`purpose and effect of denying Plaintiff, and other members of the collective,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`employment opportunities because of their age. These policies cannot be
`
`
`
`justified by reasonable factors other than age.
`
`54.Starbucks likewise maintained and implemented these intentional and willful
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`policies and practices with the purpose of eliminating its older workers,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`specifically persons over age 40, and replacing them with younger workers
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`under the age of 40.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`55.Starbucks is aware, or should have been aware, that federal law requires it to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`conduct recruitment and hiring for the Covered Positions without regard to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`an applicant's age.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`56.Likewise, Starbucks is aware that federal law prohibits using Age as the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`reason to terminate, or seek to terminate, workers, or treat them differently,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`or target them, and scrutinize them differently than their peers solely because
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of their age over 40.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`57.Plaintiff is aware of another Store Manager who was over the age of 40 also
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`subjected to similar discriminatory employment actions.
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-04869-AT-WEJ Document 1 Filed 11/29/21 Page 14 of 33
`
`
`
`58.Plaintiff also brings this class action, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Procedure 23(a), (b)(2), and (c)(4), seeking liability-phase injunctive, and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`declaratory relief on behalf of a class of all applicants, and deterred
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`prospective applicants ages 40 and older, for the Covered Positions in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GEORGIA at any time from November 5, 2019, through the resolution of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`this action for claims under The Georgia Age Discrimination Act, GA Code
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Sec. 34-1-2.
`
`The CLASS:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`All persons over the age of 40 previously employed by STARBUCKS in
`
`
`GEORGIA, whose employment with STARBUCKS was terminated
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`during the period of November 5, 2019, through the present, in the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`position of Store Manager other management positions, or who, as
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`current employees, were denied promotions, or not considered for other
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`open positions they applied for.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`59.Plaintiff also brings this class action, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3), for monetary damages, and other make-whole
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`relief on behalf of a class of all applicants, as well as deterred prospective
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`applicants ages 40 and older, for the Covered Positions in Georgia at any
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`time from November 5, 2019, through the resolution of this action for claims
`
`
`
`under The Georgia Age Discrimination Act, GA Code Sec. 34-1-2.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-04869-AT-WEJ Document 1 Filed 11/29/21 Page 15 of 33
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`60.Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the definition of the class based on
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`discovery or legal developments.
`
`61.Plaintiff is a member of the class he seeks to represent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`62.The members of the class identified herein are so numerous that joining all
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`members is impracticable. As of 2020, Starbucks employs over 10,000
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`employees in Georgia, with 325 or more stores or locations.
`
`
`
`
`
` Although
`
`Plaintiff does not know the precise number of all STARBUCKS applicants,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and deterred prospective applicants ages 40 and older, the number is far
`
`
`
`greater than can feasibly be addressed through joinder.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`63.The same holds true for the number of persons in GEORGIA over the age of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`40 who were discharged, terminated, or constructively discharged/forced to
`
`
`
`
`
`retire because of their age.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`64.An example of constructive discharge occurred and occurs when Baycare
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`demotes an employee, solely due to their age, to a position of such financial
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`harm, and detriment, that it is essentially the equivalent of a discharge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Regardless,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Defendant's actions of relegating, or demoting, full-time
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`employees to part-time employment, and other similar decisions based upon
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the age of employees, such as not considering older employees for open
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`positions, or promotions, based solely upon his or her age, is intentional
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-04869-AT-WEJ Document 1 Filed 11/29/21 Page 16 of 33
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`discrimination, conduct of which Starbucks has been engaged in over several
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`years preceding the filing of this lawsuit.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`65.Based upon information and belief, since 2015, the average age of Store
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Managers being hired has been getting younger and younger, and most if not
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`all hired managers were under age 50.
`
`66.There are questions of law, and facts common to the class, these questions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`predominate
`
`
`
` over
`
`
`
` any
`
`
`
` questions
`
`
`
` affecting
`
`
`
` only
`
`
`
` individual
`
`
`
` members.
`
`Common questions include, among others:
`
`
`
`a. whether
`
`
`
` Defendant’s
`
`
`
` policies
`
`
`
` or
`
`
`
` practices
`
`
`
` exclude
`
`
`
` prospective
`
`applicants ages 40 and over from applying to the Covered Positions;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`b. whether Defendant’s policies or practices deter prospective applicants
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ages 40 and over from applying to the Covered Positions;
`
`
`
`c. whether
`
`
`
` Defendant’s
`
`
`
` policies
`
`
`
` or
`
`
`
` practices
`
`
`
` discriminate
`
`
`
` against
`
`applicants, and deter prospective applicants, ages 40 and older; and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`whether Defendant intentionally disfavors applicants ages 40 and
`
`
`
`older;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`d. whether Defendant’s policies and practices violate The Georgia Age
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Discrimination Act, GA Code Sec. 34-1-2;
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-04869-AT-WEJ Document 1 Filed 11/29/21 Page 17 of 33
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`e. whether Defendant’s challenged policies or practices are necessary to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`its business operations; whether age is a bona fide occupational
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`qualification;
`
`
`
` and
`
`
`
` whether
`
`
`
` Defendant’s
`
`
`
` challenged
`
`
`
` policies
`
`
`
` or
`
`practices are necessary to its business operations;
`
`f. whether age is a bona fide occupational qualification; and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`g. whether equitable remedies, injunctive relief, compensatory damages,
`
`
`
`
`
`and punitive damages are warranted for the class.
`
`67.The Representative Plaintiff's claims are typical of the claims of the class.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`68.The Representative Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the interests of the members of the class. Plaintiff has retained counsel
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` complex
`
` class
`
` actions,
`
` employment
`
`
`
`competent
`
`
`
` and
`
`
`
` experienced
`
`
`
` in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`discrimination litigation, and the intersection thereof.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`69.Class certification is appropriate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`23(b)(2), in that Defendant has acted and/or refused to act on grounds
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`generally applicable to the class, making appropriate declaratory and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`injunctive relief with respect to Plaintiff and the class as a whole. The class
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`members are entitled to injunctive relief to end Defendant’s common,
`
`
`
`
`
`uniform, unfair, and discriminatory policies and practices.
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-04869-AT-WEJ Document 1 Filed 11/29/21 Page 18 of 33
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`70.Class certification is also appropriate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Procedure 23(b)(3), in that common questions of fact and law predominate
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`over any questions affecting only individual members of the class, and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`because a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`efficient adjudication of this litigation. The class members have been
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`damaged and are entitled to recovery as a result of Defendant’s