Starbucks Corporation v. The Superior Court Of Orange County

Facts

D uses the same two-page job application form nationwide for store-level employees. The application's first page includes a question (the “convictions question”), which asks: “Have you been convicted of a crime in the last seven (7) years?” It further explains: “If Yes, list convictions that are a matter of public record (arrests are not convictions). A conviction will not necessarily disqualify you for employment.” The reverse side of the application contains disclaimers for United States applicants, as well as three different states: Maryland, Massachusetts, and California. These disclaimers are located in a 346-word paragraph directly above the signature line. The California portion of the disclaimer provides: “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.” Ps filed their class action lawsuit on behalf of an estimated 135,000 Starbucks job applicants who sought jobs at D locations throughout California. California law prohibits employers from asking about marijuana-related convictions that are more than two years old. Ps sought to recover actual damages or $200 each, whichever was greater. (Lab. Code, §§ 432.7, subd. (c), 432.8.) Ps claim that the California disclaimer was “buried within a block of type,” did not specifically refer to the convictions question, and was placed near the end of the document. Ps had applied for a job at D by filling out a job application. None had a marijuana arrest or conviction. None was hired. None of the real parties ever used marijuana and all understood and read the application. The court certified a class and held that “the mere offering of the application containing the impermissible question is a violation of the Labor Code. The court denied D's motion for summary judgment. The court determined that the convictions question on its face violated sections 432.7, subdivision (c), and 432.8, and doubted the legal sufficiency of the California disclaimer. The court questioned whether an average applicant would see the California disclaimer because the location and font size (which the court guessed to be eight point) were “not effective to draw the attention of the job applicant.” The court held that the plain language of the statutes establishes a strict liability standard of conduct where a job applicant seeks to recover only the minimum statutory damage amount of $200. The court determined that proof of damages was not a necessary element to plaintiffs' ability to recover the statutory minimum of $200 per applicant. The court granted summary adjudication in favor of D on a separate cause of action for violation of California's unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.). The court reasoned that “none of the plaintiffs has lost money or property as a result of the alleged unfair or unlawful conduct. Plaintiffs offer no evidence or argument … that any of them has lost money or property. D filed a petition for a writ of mandate.

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2025 ABN Study Partner.