Starbucks workers sue over dress-code changes, alleging unreimbursed costs

Starbucks workers in three states allege the company’s new dress code shifts clothing costs onto employees and violates state wage-reimbursement laws, as lawsuits filed Wednesday in Illinois and Colorado join complaints with California authorities. The actions are backed by Starbucks Workers United, the union representing many of the company’s workers, and reflect a broader push by labor organizers to challenge employer-imposed expenses in a bid to win reimbursements and protections for staff.

The revised dress code, which went into effect on May 12, requires all North American partners to wear a solid black shirt with short or long sleeves under their green aprons. Shirts may lack collars but must cover the midriff and armpits. Bottoms must be khaki, black or blue denim without patterns or frayed hems, and solid black dresses are allowed only if they fall no more than four inches above the knee. Shoes must be black, gray, dark blue, brown, tan or white and made from a waterproof material, with subdued socks and hosiery. The policy also bans face tattoos and more than one facial piercing, and prohibits tongue piercings and “theatrical makeup.” Starbucks said the change aimed to make uniforms more consistent and recognizable to customers, while providing clearer guidance for partners.

In a company statement, Starbucks said that as part of the transition, partners received two shirts at no cost to help prepare for the change. The company did not directly address the lawsuits, but said the intent of the update was to create a uniform appearance that supports a warmer, more familiar in-store experience. The dress code, Starbucks noted, complements an effort to reestablish a welcoming environment in its stores after years of assorted branding and service tweaks. The policy’s rollout followed decades of evolving standards, including a 2016 shift that allowed patterned shirts in a broader palette and a looser enforcement regime prior to the new requirements.

The lawsuits claim the dress code and the lack of reimbursement for new clothing violate state laws that require employers to cover expenses that primarily benefit the employer. Colorado’s suit specifically asserts that the policy imposes expenses on workers without their written consent, a point the plaintiffs say violates state law. The Illinois complaint echoes the same concern and seeks damages on behalf of all Starbucks workers in those states, regardless of whether their stores are unionized. California workers filed complaints with the state’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency, and if the agency declines to pursue penalties, the workers plan to file a class-action suit in California.

The personal cost to employees has already become tangible for some staff. Brooke Allen, a full-time student who works at a Davis, California, Starbucks, said a manager told her in July that the Crocs she wore did not meet the new standards and that she would need different footwear to work the following day. Allen faced a shopping trip across three stores to locate compliant shoes, paying $60.09 for a pair and an additional $86.95 for black shirts and jeans to conform with the new rules. “I think it’s extremely tone-deaf on the company’s part to expect their employees to completely redesign their wardrobe without any compensation,” Allen said. “A lot of us are already living paycheck to paycheck.” Allen, who misses the previous dress-code flexibility that allowed color and multiple facial piercings, said the new look makes the stores feel less expressive.

The three-state action comes as part of a broader wave of worker-led legal strategies tied to Starbucks Workers United, which has helped organize roughly 640 of the company’s 10,000 company-owned U.S. stores. The union has filed hundreds of unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board over the years as it expands its efforts to win better wages, benefits and working conditions. Although the NLRB has pursued a range of charges, its ability to decide cases has been hindered by a lack of quorum after a presidentially appointed member was removed, limiting the board’s capacity to adjudicate. The disruption has become a notable backdrop to ongoing labor activity centered on Starbucks and other major U.S. employers.

Advocates for Starbucks workers frame the dress-code disputes as part of a broader push to secure fair reimbursement for employer-mandated expenses. While Starbucks said the company provided two shirts at no cost, plaintiffs argue that many employees incur ongoing costs for footwear, tops and other apparel required to meet the policy. They also note that the costs occur at a time of rising living expenses and wage stagnation in the retail and hospitality sectors. The suits seek damages for affected workers and call for broader rules to ensure reimbursements when employer requirements impose expenses on staff.

The dress code change is also part of Starbucks’ broader attempt to refresh its brand image and store experience after a period of inconsistent messaging and store design. The company maintains that the policy is designed to help staff present a consistent, recognizable appearance that reinforces its customer-service goals. Critics argue that while a uniform appearance may support branding, it should not transfer ordinary business costs to workers, especially when the company stands to benefit from a standardized presentation.

The California complaints, filed with the state agency, detail the costs faced by workers who sought reimbursement for items such as clothing and piercings that were deemed noncompliant under the policy. The plaintiffs say that even when they attempted to obtain reimbursement, they were denied in some cases, and they argue that the policy as implemented imposes expenses that primarily benefit the employer’s brand and customer experience. If California action proceeds to a class-action filing, it would add to the multi-state dimension of the dispute and test how state-level wage-reimbursement rules interact with national corporate dress-code policies.

As the legal actions unfold, Starbucks declined to comment directly on the lawsuits but reiterated that the dress code changes aimed to improve customer experience and partner preparation. The company’s stance also emphasizes that staff received two shirts at no cost to help cover the transition, and it notes ongoing training and guidance provided to partners to ensure clarity and consistency.

Images:

The dispute underscores a broader trend in which workers in large retail and service-sector companies seek formal reimbursement for expenses tied to employer programs, from uniforms and safety gear to costlier apparel and personal appearance requirements. Labor groups argue that such expenses should not fall on workers when the employer benefits from standardized branding or streamlined operations.

If the California agency decides not to pursue penalties, organizers say they intend to proceed with a California class-action filing. Starbucks has not indicated whether a nationwide policy would be reevaluated in response to the suits, though the company has stressed its aim of maintaining a consistent, welcoming environment across its stores. The evolving legal strategy signals how unions and workers are increasingly leveraging state wage-reimbursement rules and class-action mechanisms to challenge employer-imposed costs in high-profile corporate settings.

As the lawsuits proceed, observers will be watching not only the potential damages and reimbursements but also how these cases influence future dress-code policies inside Starbucks and similar retailers. The outcome could shape how employers design uniform programs, how they document and seek reimbursement for expenses, and how labor groups coordinate cross-state actions when addressing wage and expense-related concerns across large corporate networks.

Images:

Images: