Starbucks Dress Code Dispute Sparks Multi-state Legal Claims

Employees in Illinois, California, and Colorado have filed lawsuits against the company, alleging violations of state wage and labor laws following the implementation of a new Starbucks dress code (Shay Mannick, et al. v. Starbucks Corporation in the 2nd Judicial District of Colorado).

HR Dive reports that the change, announced in April and effective May 12, requires employees to wear solid black shirts and khaki, black, or blue denim bottoms. Starbucks provided two shirts free of charge, but did not reimburse workers for additional clothing or accessories purchased to comply with the policy.

The disputes arose after employees sought reimbursement for apparel and accessories they had purchased to comply with the new dress code. In Illinois, three plaintiffs requested reimbursements totaling over $250 for clothing, piercing removal, and shoes.

Starbucks declined, citing an absence of an established reimbursement process. The employees cited both the Starbucks employee manual and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, which requires employers to reimburse “all reasonable expenditures” necessary for employment.

Similarly, plaintiffs in Colorado claimed unpaid costs for clothing and waterproof shoes, referencing the Colorado Wage Claims Act. California workers made similar claims under state labor code provisions requiring employers to cover uniform costs when apparel has a “distinctive design or color.”

Starbucks maintains that the dress code change was intended to simplify guidance for employees, citing benefits including higher wages and parental leave. Plaintiffs contend the additional clothing costs impose undue financial burdens, especially amid understaffing and reduced hours.

The cases raise important questions about employer obligations under state wage laws, and about uniform policies when dress code changes impose new purchase requirements.

These proceedings may clarify the scope of reimbursement obligations under state law and will influence how employers implement and communicate dress code policies when changes impose new costs on employees.