Plaintiff, the State of Missouri, alleges that Defendant, Starbucks, engages in race and sex discrimination through its DEI programs, which "skew[s] the hiring pool towards people who are less qualified to perform their work, increasing costs for Missouri's consumers."

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's commitment to DEI is a pretext for unlawful discrimination. It alleges that Starbucks' aspirational diversity goals are actually quotas, that the company offers discriminatory training and mentoring programs for women and "BIPOC" employees, and that it "segregates" employees through affinity groups.

On April 7, 2025 Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of standing and for failure to state a claim. Defendant argues that the State of Missouri lacks a concrete interest in Starbucks' hiring practices and DEI programs, unlike an employee who might be directly affected. Merely asserting an interest in protecting residents from discrimination, they contend, is insufficient for standing. Relatedly, Defendant also argues that the state has failed to bring a proper claim because it is not authorized to bring Title VII or Section 1981 claims against a private employer.

On May 21, 2025, Plaintiff opposed Defendant's motion to dismiss, asserting that Starbucks conceded that it adjusted compensation based on whether managers hit diversity quotas. They also claimed that these alleged quotas, trainings, and mentoring programs impact state citizens and under the legal concept of parens patriae, when enough citizens are harmed, the state itself is harmed and can sue. Plaintiff also asserted that it brought valid claims that demonstrated "adverse employment action" (e.g., tying compensation to quotas, exclusionary programs and opportunities, etc.) against employees as a result of discriminatory practices.