Too Little, Too Latte: What Businesses Should Take Away From the Starbucks Predicament
What can other employers learn from Starbucks' recent highly publicized troubles over the arrest for trespassing in Philadelphia of two African-American men who were waiting for a friend? The men were arrested and jailed for several hours before they were released without charges.
July 10, 2018 at 02:30 PM
9 minute read
Pictured, from left, are Robert G. Brody and Lindsay M. Rinehart. Starbucks Corp. CEO Kevin Johnson is in damage control mode. Back in April, two black men were arrested for trespassing while waiting for a friend in a Philadelphia Starbucks. One of the men requested access to the restroom but was told it was for paying customers only. The men were then approached by a manager and asked if they wanted to order. After they declined, the manager called the cops. The men were arrested and jailed for several hours before they were released. No charges were filed. The incident sparked protests across the city where some protesters marched from Starbucks to Starbucks. Others staged sit-ins in various Starbucks locations, sometimes sitting for hours on end and refusing to order. Demonstrators at the Philadelphia store were heard chanting “ a whole lot of racism, a whole lot of crap, Starbucks coffee is anti-black .” News of the incident was heard around the world. Adding insult to injury, only a few days later, news broke and a video surfaced of a black man claiming he was denied access to a bathroom at a Starbucks in Los Angeles, even though a white man was given the entry code. Neither man was a paying customer. More protests, demonstrations, and anger towards the brand followed. On the afternoon of May 29, just a few weeks after these incidents, Starbucks closed all of the approximately 8,000 company-owned stores across the United States to conduct training of the chain's nearly 175,000 employees. CEO Johnson said the mandatory training was “designed to address implicit bias, promote conscious inclusion, prevent discrimination and ensure everyone inside a Starbucks store feels safe and welcome.” Starbucks then-executive chairman Howard Schultz told CBS the training will cost the company millions of dollars, but views it as “an investment in our people and our company.” Experts estimate the training cost upwards of $12 million in lost profit for the company. So, what can other employers learn from this? |
Have Set Policies, Enforce Them Uniformly
Issues often arise when employers do not have established policies, or when their supervisors do not enforce policies uniformly. Unfortunately for Starbucks, much of its “no pay-no stay” policy was left to the discretion of individual managers. Until recently, the company did not actually have set guidelines on how managers should deal with customers who have not made purchases. By leaving management to make its own decisions, the company left this issue ripe for inconsistency and controversy. It only took one manager making a seemingly discriminatory decision to nearly tumble the Fortune 500 company. So, as an employer, how can you adjust your workplace policies to provide your business with the greatest level of protection? The first step for any employer is to actually have set policies. By having and reinforcing established policies, employers take much of the guesswork out of management and can protect themselves from a seemingly innocent decision that might appear to have a discriminatory effect. Managers should, however, understand the rationale behind workplace policies to be able to implement them properly and avoid unconscious biases or the appearance of bias. If managers are given the tools and guidance to take systematic action—there will not be much opportunity for bias to creep in. The second step is to uniformly and consistently enforce those policies. For example, if you have a policy that requires customers make a purchase before using the restroom—this means any customer that wants to use the restroom must purchase something. It does not matter what their race, gender, sexual orientation, etc., may be—they must be treated the same across the board. This is exactly what got Starbucks in trouble, twice. Yet another example is if you have a solicitation policy that prohibits solicitation by nonemployees—you'd better be ready to turn away those Girl Scouts just like you turned away that guy looking to sell DVDs. It does not and should not matter that your daughter, niece, or sister is a Girl Scout and you want to support them. Consistency is the key. Here, the manager at the Philadelphia Starbucks was trying to enforce the store's own policy that only paying customers are permitted to use the bathroom and sit in the store. However, there are claims this policy was not consistently enforced. At least one witness claimed she had seen a woman enter the store minutes before the two men and she was given the code for the bathroom without making a purchase. Another person in the store at the same time this incident occurred allegedly announced she had been there for hours without making a purchase and had no issues. Starbucks is learning from its mistakes and making changes to its company policies. Late last month, the company announced a new policy that will permit customers to use restrooms, cafes and patios, even without making a purchase. The policy provides, in part, the company wants its stores to be the “third place,” defined as a “warm and welcoming environment where customers can gather and connect.” The policy requests all customers behave in an appropriate manner by: using the spaces as they are intended, being considerate of others, communicating with respect, and by acting responsibly. Lastly, the policy lays out protocol for staff faced with a difficult or disruptive customer—something from which the manager at the Philadelphia store could have benefited. Employers should learn from Starbucks' mistakes and determine if they have the needed policies and if so, are those policies adequate. When you do not have established workplace policies, or do not enforce established policies consistently, you are leaving every decision you or your managers make open to interpretation and attack. Don't leave things to chance. |
Don't Wait Until It's Too Late to Train Your Staff
While Starbucks' decision to conduct anti-bias training of its employees was obviously a smart attempt to repair some of the damage these incidents have caused, employers should take the time to learn from this and be more proactive. Employers rely on their employees and supervisors to reinforce the positive reputation of the company. It is important your staff is given the proper tools to do so. The time to train your employees is now—not after you have a problem. Whether we'd like to admit it or not, we all have unconscious biases. Anti-bias training should emphasize the notion that unconscious biases are not the result of being a bad person, but rather they are the result of being human. Anti-bias training programs should not condemn people for their unconscious biases or beliefs but rather reinforce the importance of recognizing them and properly managing them in order to maintain a positive workplace atmosphere. Considering the growth of the #MeToo movement, employers should consider conducting broad-based training of employees and managers that encompasses not only sexual harassment but other types of harassment and discrimination in general. Just as sexual harassment has been a highlight of the news in recent months, so too has racial, religious and age discrimination—the list goes on. Don't waste time on training that only focuses on one part of the problem. Additionally, employers should be prepared to work with the person or people conducting the training to adequately tailor the training to the company's specific business. A training that is too vague or one which does not translate well to the audience will not be as effective as one which gives concrete examples and solutions attendees see every day on the job. Most importantly, prevention starts with you and the other senior members of your company. If you do not take this seriously, your staff won't either. |
Be Proactive, Not Reactive. Remember—Your Employees Are the Face of Your Business
The Starbucks debacle is just another example of how beholden a company is to its employees. Nothing suggests Johnson wanted, encouraged or approved of any sort of discriminatory or biased behavior. Nonetheless, the actions of one or two employees managed to mar the reputation of one of the largest quick service restaurant chains in the world. Employers must provide their employees with the tools necessary to be an integral part of the business's success. This includes providing each and every employee with adequate guidance and necessary learning opportunities regarding fair treatment. By putting the time and effort into training your employees, you are showing them they matter and they are a valuable part of the success of the business. Act now to protect your business. Don't be put in a position where it's too little, too latte . Robert G. Brody is the founder and managing member of Brody and Associates, a management-side labor, employment, and benefits firm with offices in Westport, Connecticut, and New York City. He can be reached at [email protected]. Lindsay M. Rinehart is an associate with Brody and Associates in Westport.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250