Quimbee logo with url
From our private database of 14,500+ case briefs...

Starbucks Corp. v. Superior Court

Court of Appeals of California
86 Cal. Rptr. 3d 482 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)


Starbucks Corporation (Starbucks) (defendant) required interested applicants for employment to fill out a nationwide application form. The front page of the form required applicants to disclose any convictions within the last seven years. On the reverse side, the form contained a 346-word paragraph in smaller font with several state-specific disclaimers. Toward the end of the paragraph, the form included a disclaimer applicable only to California applicants. The disclaimer stated that California applicants were not required to disclose convictions for marijuana possession that were more than two years old. In 2005, Eric Lords and Hon Yeung (plaintiffs) brought a class-action lawsuit against Starbucks on behalf of approximately 135,000 California applicants who had applied to Starbucks and filled out the nationwide form. Although none of the applicants had marijuana-related convictions to disclose, the plaintiffs claimed that the form violated the California Labor Code, which prohibited employers from inquiring about marijuana-related convictions that were more than two years old. The plaintiffs sought statutory damages of $200 per applicant. At a deposition, both Lords and Yeung admitted that they had read the entire form prior to applying, including the California disclaimer, and understood that they were not required to disclose any convictions for marijuana possession that were more than two years old. Starbucks moved for summary judgment. The trial court denied Starbucks’ motion, finding that the form violated the California Labor Code and that the plaintiffs had standing to collect statutory damages. The trial court also found a material issue of fact as to whether the California disclaimer would alert a reasonable job applicant that the disclosure of marijuana-related convictions that were more than two years old was not required in California. Starbucks filed a petition for a writ of mandate. The Court of Appeals of California issued an order to show cause why the motion for summary judgment should not be granted.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Ikola, 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 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read 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. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 265,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,500 briefs, keyed to 196 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.