Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—Starbucks worker alleges hair-based harassment in federal suit, (Sep 11, 2026)

By Brandi O. Brown, J.D.

She also contends that the employer violated the FLSA by requiring her to clock out before she had completed all of her work, resulting in unpaid hours and overtime.

A former shift supervisor at Starbucks Corporation has filed a federal lawsuit accusing the company of failing to pay overtime wages, subjecting her to a racially hostile work environment, and retaliating against her after she complained about discriminatory treatment. The complaint was filed last week in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

“Unprofessional” and “ghetto.” According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff began working for Starbucks beginning in December 2023 as a shift supervisor at a Jonesboro, Georgia, store. She alleges that problems began after a new store manager was transferred to that store in August 2024. The shift supervisor, who identifies as a Black woman, alleges that the new store manager (SM) repeatedly criticized hairstyles and appearance traits associated with Black women.

“Tina Turner.” For example, she alleges in the complaint that the SM described her appearance as "unprofessional" and "ghetto," complained about beads worn in her hair, criticized her for wearing what the SM viewed as excessive hair extensions (saying she “wore too much weave”), and referred to her as "Tina Turner" in connection with certain hairstyles.

The shift supervisor alleges that the SM’s comments continued throughout her employment and became severe enough that she stopped styling her hair in October 2025 in an effort to avoid further criticism. The complaint states that she repeatedly informed the SM that she considered the comments discriminatory, harassing, and inappropriate.

She alleges that her belief that the SM’s conduct was discriminatory and unlawful was reasonable, noting that in 2021Clayton County passed the CROWN Act, which prohibits discrimination based on protective and culturally associated hairstyles and hair textures.

Retaliation. The shift supervisor alleges she first reported the conduct to a district manager (DM) in October 2024. Although the DM allegedly told her he would address the situation, she claims the conduct continued. Instead, she contends that after making the complaint, she became the target of retaliation.

Among other actions, she alleges that the SM subjected her to heightened disciplinary scrutiny and issued a final written warning after accusing her of leaving a $20 bill unsecured overnight. The lawsuit claims the shift supervisor had no prior disciplinary record and that another employee who allegedly left approximately $200 unsecured was not disciplined in the same manner.

Hours reduced. The complaint further alleges that the shift supervisor’s work hours were dramatically reduced after she complained. She alleges she sought schedules of approximately 38 hours per week but was frequently assigned fewer than 20 hours and, in some instances, as few as four or eight hours per week at her home store. To maintain her income, she allegedly had to obtain shifts from managers at other Starbucks locations.

She also claims the SM explicitly connected the scheduling reductions to her complaints. The lawsuit alleges the SM told her that "none of this would be happening if you hadn't reported me" and referenced a close relationship with the DM while discussing the shift supervisor’s reports to the DM, saying “He tells me everything so you should never have done that.”

Reported to HR, management, and union. According to the complaint, the shift supervisor repeatedly reported both the discrimination and retaliation to management and to Starbucks human resources through ethics complaints. She also alleges that in March 2025 she contacted a representative with Starbucks Workers United and that the representative submitted an ethics complaint on her behalf. Nevertheless, she claims, Starbucks did not discipline the SM or otherwise stop the conduct.

EEOC charge and resignation. She filed an EEOC charge in November 2025, alleging race discrimination and retaliation, and received a right-to-sue notice on June 3, 2026. She alleged she resigned from the company on April 13, 2026, after continuing harassment, retaliation, and a lack of support from Starbucks.

The lawsuit asserts claims for hostile work environment and retaliation under Title VII. The shift supervisor alleges the company's actions caused both economic and non-economic harm, including lost earnings, lost employment opportunities, damage to her professional reputation, and emotional distress.

FLSA claims too. In addition to Title VII claims, the employee also levied FLSA claims against her former employer. She alleges that although her position was classified as nonexempt and eligible for overtime pay under federal wage law, she was routinely required to perform work after clocking out and was not compensated for that time. She alleges that she was required to perform closing duties after clocking out, pursuant to instructions from her store manager not to exceed 38 recorded hours per week. She claims the off-the-clock work regularly pushed her over 40 hours, yet the additional time was not recorded or compensated. Based on those allegations, she asserts that Starbucks violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay overtime wages and seeks back pay, liquidated damages, and related relief.

In her request for relief, the employee seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, compensatory and punitive damages where available, back pay, front pay, attorney fees, litigation expenses, and other relief. She has also demanded a jury trial.

The case is No. 1:26-cv-05009-WMR-JSA.

News: LitigationNewsTrends Discrimination RaceDiscrimination WageHour Overtime