Starbucks SLAMMED with Vent-Sized “L” in New Court Ruling…

Well, it looks like Starbucks has officially just been served a venti-sized L by the U.S. legal system. A federal appeals court has ruled that the coffee chain illegally fired two South Philly baristas, Echo Nowakowska and Tristan Bussiere, for trying to unionize. And no, Starbucks, you can’t just cover this one up with whipped cream and caramel drizzle LOL. 

(Source: Giphy) 

In short, The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said there was plenty of evidence to support the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) conclusion that Starbucks engaged in some seriously unfair labor practices. The company canned Nowakowska in January 2020, claiming she “mistreated customers” (likely for daring to spell names correctly), and Bussiere the next month for allegedly spreading a false rumor about another barista getting fired. Spoiler alert: The court didn’t buy it.

(Source: The Guardian) 

Of course, Starbucks tried to challenge the constitutionality of the NLRB’s administrative law judges, essentially asking, “Hey, are these guys even allowed to tell us what to do?” The court’s answer? A resounding, “Yeah, sit down.” Judge Thomas Ambro said Starbucks lacked standing to make that argument, dealing a potential blow to other corporate heavyweights like Amazon, Trader Joe’s, and SpaceX, who’ve been eyeing similar legal gymnastics to avoid union headaches.

Adding insult to injury, the court also rejected Starbucks’ claim that they shouldn’t have to rehire the baristas or pay them back wages because they only later discovered the two had recorded meetings with supervisors without consent. (Which, honestly, just sounds like a  “We’re not mad you did it; we’re mad we got caught.” scenario)

(Source: Giphy) 

However, the silver lining is that the court did say  NLRB overstepped by ordering Starbucks to cover the baristas’ “foreseeable expenses” like job-hunting costs and medical bills. So congrats, Starbucks—you don’t have to pay for their therapy sessions after firing them. Small victories, amrite?

Now obviously, at a 30,000 ft view, this ruling is the latest chapter in Starbucks’ ongoing issues of trying to minimize unionization efforts of its employees. Over the past year, the company has faced plenty of accusations of unfair labor practices, accusations they’ve denied harder than a Karen demanding oat milk at 2% prices.

(Source: Reuters) 

And it’s also why the unionization push continues to brew (pun intended) at Starbucks stores nationwide—with strikes at over 300 locations just this month. Starbucks Workers United, the group leading the charge, is dunking on the company like it’s a stale biscotti, calling out retaliatory actions and corporate stonewalling. Meanwhile, Starbucks has tried to spin this as a misunderstanding, claiming their actions were all about “performance issues” and not, you know, squashing union dreams. But when your excuse is as overused as “Sorry, we’re out of cold brew,” don’t expect anyone to believe it.

For Starbucks, this court ruling is just another blow that could embolden other workers to push for union rights and make companies think twice before trying to steamroll employees. But for now, the company is likely weighing its next move while sipping something much stronger than a friggin’ morning coffee. 

(Source: Giphy) 

Regardless though, if your Starbucks and your go-to strategy for dealing with unions involves firing people, maybe don’t? That could solve a lot of their issues relatively quickly. Just my honest opinion there, but for investors, keep an eye on this tailspin as we head into 2025. There could be more fireworks ahead.

In the meantime, enjoy your LAST Monday of 2024 and as always, stay safe and stay frosty, friends! Until next time…

P.S. The New Year is upon us! Will 2025 be the same for you as 2024 was? Or will it be dramatically better? The choice is yours. Click here to join Stocks.News premium and start the new year off on the right foot…

Stocks.News holds positions in Starbucks as mentioned in the article.