Class Action

Class Action Defense Cases–Starbucks v. Superior Court: California State Appellate Court Orders Judgment In Favor Of Starbucks In Labor Law Class Action Holding Named Plaintiffs In Class Action Suffered No Injury

By Michael J. Hassen

Class Action Seeking Statutory Damages on behalf of all Applicants could not Survive Defense Motion for Summary Judgment because Class Action Representatives Suffered no Injury and Legislature did not Intend to Permit Unaffected Individuals to Recover Statutory Damages California State Court Holds

Plaintiffs filed a class action against Starbucks alleging violations of California labor law provisions concerning information collected from prospective employees during the application process; specifically, the class action complaint asserted that Starbucks improperly asked applicants “about prior marijuana convictions that are more than two years old.” Starbucks v. Superior Court, ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Cal.App. December 10, 2008) [Slip Opn., at 2]. According to the class action, “Starbucks uses the same two-page job application form nationwide for store level employees” and that one of the questions asked is, “Have you been convicted of a crime in the last seven (7) years?” Id. The application makes clear that “arrests are not convictions,” and advises that a conviction “will not necessarily disqualify you for employment.” Id. The class action sought statutory damages in the amount of $200 per applicant – “a remedy which, by Starbucks’ estimation, could total a whopping $26 million.” Id. The trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class action treatment, certifying a class of approximately 135,000 applicants. Id. The trial court certified the class action on behalf of all applicants who completed a questionnaire with the convictions question and who sought no more than $200 in damages, id., at 5. In the trial court’s words, “The mere offering of the application containing the impermissible question is a violation of the Labor Code. [¶] Damages may be calculated simply by multiplying the probable number of applicants during the class period times $200.00.” Id. Defense attorneys moved for summary judgment of the class action claims, asserting in part that class members suffered no damage. Id., at 2. The trial court denied the motion, and defense attorneys sought extraordinary relief from the Court of Appeal, id. The California Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that “[n]othing in the statutes in question authorizes job applicants to automatically recover $200 per person without proof they were aggrieved persons with an injury the statute was designed to remedy,” and ordered the trial court to enter judgment in favor of Starbucks.

The thrust of the class action was that California prohibits employers “from asking about marijuana-related convictions that are more than two years old.” Starbucks, at 4. The class action further argued that California law permits applicants “to recover actual damages or $200 each, whichever is greater.” Id. (citations omitted). The appellate court observed, however, that Starbucks disclosed on the reverse side of the application that California applicants need not disclose marijuana-related convictions that are more than two years old, stating in full: “CALIFORNIA APPLICANTS ONLY: Applicant may omit any convictions for the possession of marijuana (except for convictions for the possessions of marijuana on school grounds or possession of concentrated cannabis) that are more than two (2) years old, and any information concerning a referral to, and participation in, any pretrial or post trial diversion program.” Id., at 2-3. Notably, each of the named plaintiffs had read the disclaimer on the reverse of the Starbucks application and each understood that they were not required to disclose any marijuana convictions that were more than two years old; moreover, none of the named plaintiffs had been arrested for or convicted of a marijuana-related crime. Id., at 4-5. The Court of Appeal summarized at page 2, “Plaintiffs’ lawsuit suffers from two fundamental flaws, either of which provides ample grounds for writ relief. First, Starbucks attempted to disclaim an interest in such prohibited information, and two of the plaintiffs understood Starbucks not to be seeking it. Second, no plaintiff had any marijuana-related convictions to reveal.”

Full post as published by Class Action Defense Blog on December 15, 2008 (boomark / email).