Law Agent

Legal Briefs Hub


A Starbucks Lawsuit Reveals Troublesome Trends

A lawsuit filed against Starbucks has revealed some troubling trends, including underfilling of latte cups and a lack of space for a quarter-inch of foam in drinks. The coffee chain was sued in June for underfilling latte cups, leaving 1/4-inch of space in the drink cup. The lawsuit alleges that Starbucks was saving millions of dollars by underfilling latte cups, but was unfairly enriching itself by charging for a product that was not delivered.

According to the complaint, Starbucks regularly exposes its workers and customers to toxic chemicals.

The plaintiff claims that the chemical exposures come from the air, fixtures, and food the coffee giant serves. A recent example of this is the case of a man who was exposed to lead, a toxic gas. The alleged pollution is not limited to the Starbucks cafes but includes other large chains that sell toxic gas. In addition to workers, the companies’ supply chain also uses hazardous waste to create their products.

The lawsuit also claims that Starbucks does not have adequate safety measures to protect its customers. The company’s iced beverages, for example, are topped with too much ice. However, it does not state how much ice is in its drinks. The judge agreed with this finding, but a similar lawsuit is still pending in federal court in Illinois. Despite this ruling, the plaintiffs’ case will likely continue to fight the company in the courts.

Another Starbucks lawsuit is related to the use of transparent coffee cups.

During the drive-thru, a woman was burned when the lid fell off her cup, which resulted in second-degree burns. She filed suit against the coffee chain in late August, asking for $75,000 in damages. In 2014, a woman from Florida successfully sued the coffee chain over a similar claim. A judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.

The Texas lawsuit was filed in late August after a woman sustained first- and second-degree burns after the lid fell off her coffee. The woman filed the suit against the coffee chain, seeking $75,000 in damages. The lawsuit was initially dismissed due to lack of evidence in the case, but the lawsuit against Starbucks continues. There are more than a hundred thousand people who have suffered from the coffee chain. For example, a Florida woman sued Starbucks over the use of toxic chemicals.

Phillips’ lawsuit against Starbucks was filed in April 2013 and has since received national and local media attention.

She claims that she was left with second-degree burns when she accidentally spilled hot coffee during the drive-through at a Starbucks and that she is owed $75,000 in damages. She also claims that she was a victim of racial discrimination and that her injury was caused by Starbucks policies. Further, she says that she never saw her district manager engaging in racially-discriminatory conduct.

Fortunately, Starbucks is facing similar lawsuits from women in Illinois. In this case, a Starbucks manager’s salary was underpaid, while a woman was sexually harassed by her co-workers. The judge ruled against the plaintiff but added that the company’s policies prevented the district managers from deciding on the compensation of employees. Nevertheless, the court’s ruling has been influenced by the complaints of the two former Starbucks workers.

The lawsuit was dismissed, but a California woman has successfully sued Starbucks over the same claims.

Her suit cites comments on a Top Class Actions website that Starbucks employees are misled. The judge said that these comments were not relevant. The court ruled that the comments were meant to encourage the public to join the lawsuit. Besides the lawsuit filed against Starbucks in Texas, another woman in Illinois is also suing the coffee company for sexual harassment.

The complaint cited the comments made on a Top Class Actions website. The posts are relevant to Starbucks’ claims that the company is deceiving consumers. The judge cited comments posted by consumers on the website as evidence of the company’s deception. Moreover, the company defended its actions by saying that it would not pay for the comments. The judge ruled that the comments on the site were relevant to the claims of the woman.


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *