Mims v. Starbucks Corp.

2007 WL 10369 (2007)

From our private database of 46,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Mims v. Starbucks Corp.

United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
2007 WL 10369 (2007)


Kathleen Mims, former coffee-store managers Kevin Keevican and Michael Terrazas, and other store managers (plaintiffs) sued Starbucks Corporation (defendant), alleging they had been classified improperly as exempt workers and not paid overtime for work exceeding 40 hours per week, as required for nonexempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Under the FLSA, employees were classified properly as exempt if they were paid a weekly salary of at least $455, their primary duties were managerial, they supervised at least two employees, and they had input into or authority over hiring and firing decisions. As managers, Keevican and Terrazas were paid weekly salaries of around $800 and $750, respectively, almost double the pay of the next highest-paid store employees, and averaged 70 and 65 hours per week, respectively. Keevican and Terrazas held the highest positions in their stores. Keevican’s and Terrazas’s duties included exercising discretion in hiring, firing, training, and supervising between six and 30 employees. Keevican’s and Terrazas’s management duties included developing strategies for improved sales, managing costs and inventory, and processing payroll. Both managers were successful. For example, in less than 11 months, annual sales at Keevican’s store jumped from $500,000 to $1,400,000. Both managers reported to district managers but had relative freedom in the daily management of their stores. Despite managerial duties and critical successes, Keevican and Terrazas both argued that up to 80 percent of their hours were spent performing the same tasks as the baristas, who were hourly employees. Both managers argued that their primary duty was not management, and they sued Starbucks, seeking overtime pay, liquidated damages, and the like. Starbucks argued that management was Keevican’s and Terrazas’s primary duty, and that the managers were exempt from the FLSA’s overtime requirements. Starbucks moved for partial summary judgment in relation to Keevican’s and Terrazas’s claims.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Werlein, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 742,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,000 briefs, keyed to 986 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,000 briefs - keyed to 986 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership