The AG argued Starbucks' DEI policies were illegal because they "favored" BIPOC, women, and LGBTQ+ employees through mentorship, affinity groups, partnerships, and "quotas" tied to executive pay.
The court held that allegations without facts are just theories—and theories don't establish jurisdiction or liability.
The AG argued Missouri could sue to protect its citizens from discrimination.
The court held Missouri failed to identify even one injured Missourian. Without a concrete, particularized injury, there's no standing to sue—and without harm to a quasi-state interest, the state can't litigate private claims. The court also held that there was no reason individuals couldn't sue if discrimination actually occurred.
The AG argued maintaining "quotas" plus incentive compensation tied to meeting them necessarily meant discriminatory hiring and firing.
The court held discrimination still requires an adverse employment action taken because of race or sex. Starbucks' goals didn't show that. The company already exceeded many targets, retention incentives aren't zero-sum—keeping a diverse employee doesn’t mean a white or male employee was harmed—and demographic shifts ("more female and less white") don’t establish causation without facts tying them to discriminatory decisions.
The AG argued Partner Networks, mentorship programs, DEI partnerships, and executive incentives segregated employees or coerced discrimination.
The court held the networks were open to all, no one was alleged to be excluded from mentorship, and participation in groups like the Board Diversity Action Alliance showed no actual harm, and a company can't coerce itself.
The AG argued Starbucks "published" illegal job preferences in reports and proxy statements.
The court held those documents weren't job ads, didn't announce "preferred races get jobs," and didn't deter anyone from applying.
Want a durable DEI program? This opinion sketches the roadmap: aspirational goals, open-access affinity groups, mentorship without exclusion, and—most importantly—no employment decisions you can't tie to legitimate, non-discriminatory criteria. The AG brought politics. The court required facts.