Starbucks Corp. v. Orange County Super. Ct.

Starbucks Gets Court to Toss Calif. Suit Over Convictions Inquiry

A California appeals court has thrown out a class-action complaint filed by three Starbucks job applicants who claimed the coffee chain illegally asked about criminal convictions, including for marijuana possession, on its job application.

The 4th District Court of Appeal ordered the trial court to grant Starbucks' motion for summary judgment, saying the lead plaintiffs admitted they were not confused by the application and that they were not "aggrieved plaintiffs" since they had no marijuana convictions to disclose.

The panel said the plaintiffs' actual understanding of the application was critical.

"Without it, there would be nothing to stop them from freely roaming throughout the state as 'knights errant amici searching for deficiencies ... where no harm has been caused them or anyone else as a result,'" the appeals court said, citing Rodriguez v. City of Passaic, 730 F. Supp. 1314 (D.N.J. 1990).

"This would create a whole new category of employment - professional job seekers, whose quest is to voluntarily find (and fill out) job applications which they know to be defective solely for the purpose of pursuing litigation," the panel held.

According to the opinion, Starbucks used the same two-page job application form nationwide for store-level employees.

The first page of the application asks about criminal convictions "over the last seven years," the opinion says. The second page includes disclaimers for applicants in three states, including California, found in a 346-word paragraph above the signature line.

The California disclaimer states that applicants need not disclose any convictions for possession of marijuana that are more than two years old.

When completing the application, plaintiffs Eric Lords, Hon Yeung and Donald Brown each wrote, "I refuse to answer" next to the convictions question, the opinion says.

They filed suit in the Orange County Superior Court in June 2005, arguing that an application including a question with any mention of a seven-year conviction history is illegal under California law, which prohibits employers from asking about marijuana-related convictions that are more than two years old.

They asked the court to award actual damages of $200 per applicant for the 135,000 unsuccessful job applicants at Starbucks, for a total of $26 million.

The trial court certified a class of all California applicants who submitted a Starbucks application that included the convictions question since June 23, 2004.

Denying Starbucks' motion for summary judgment, the trial judge found that the mere offering of an application containing an impermissible question is a violation of California labor law.

The company filed a petition for writ of mandate from the order denying summary judgment, and the appeals court stayed the lower court proceedings.

The panel first noted that although it had no problem with the language of the California disclaimer, it did have "significant problems" with its placement at the very end of a 346-word paragraph and "submerged in a veritable sea of boldface type."

Nonetheless, it said, the plaintiffs were not entitled to recovery because they understood the application and disclaimer and did not have any marijuana convictions to disclose anyway.

"California does not sanction lawsuits for fraudulent misrepresentations brought by persons who, rather than having been deceived, act for the sole purpose of bringing a lawsuit against 'potential targets for litigation,'" the panel explained.

Finally, the appeals court found that because the plaintiffs had no marijuana convictions to disclose, they were not members of a legally protected group and had not been injured.

They are not automatically entitled to a minimum $200 "simply because they filled out the job application," the panel concluded.

To comment, ask questions or contribute articles, contact West.Andrews.Editor@ThomsonReuters.com.