Starbucks has reached a settlement with Florida, agreeing to pay $1 million and to avoid using race- or sex-based goals, quotas, or preferences in its employment policies across the company. This decision concludes a civil rights lawsuit filed by the state against the coffee chain.
The office of Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier confirmed that this settlement encompasses all Starbucks locations throughout the United States, not just those in Florida.
“Every Floridian deserves to be hired, promoted, and compensated based on merit and qualifications, not race or sex,” Uthmeier stated. “This agreement ensures Starbucks is fully compliant with Florida’s civil rights laws. Diversity, equity, and inclusion should never excuse violations of civil rights.”
The settlement resolves a lawsuit Uthmeier initiated in December 2025, where he accused Starbucks of infringing on the Florida Civil Rights Act by implementing race and sex-based hiring practices.
According to the settlement, Starbucks will adhere to state civil rights laws, which disallow preferences based on race or sex in various employment matters such as hiring, promotions, compensation, mentorship programs, supplier selection, and board composition.
The company has also committed to not engaging with organizations that mandate increased racial diversity on its board of directors.
Starbucks’ chief legal officer will need to file annual compliance certifications for a period of four years. Additionally, the company will provide $1 million to the Florida Department of Legal Affairs to cover the costs of the legal proceedings.
“We’re pleased to have reached this resolution without admitting any wrongdoing and appreciate the collaborative approach taken by the Attorney General’s Office throughout this matter,” said Pilar Ramos, Starbucks’ executive vice president and chief legal officer.
“We will continue to focus on providing excellent job opportunities for our partners and positively impacting the communities we serve, both in Florida and globally.”
The agreement does not involve any acknowledgment of liability or wrongdoing on Starbucks’ part.
This settlement stems from Uthmeier’s allegations that Starbucks transformed its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives into a discriminatory hiring system.
Uthmeier’s December complaint highlighted goals that Starbucks had set in 2020, which included having individuals of color represent 40% of retail and manufacturing jobs and 30% of corporate roles by 2025.
It also claimed that the company had paid specific employees more than others of different races who had similar skills and experience, and until March 2024, linked executive bonuses to diversity targets.
In fiscal year 2024, the lawsuit alleged criteria for bonuses required executives to mentor Black, Indigenous, and other employees of color, hold regular meetings with mentees, and maintain certain retention levels among these groups.
Moreover, some Florida Starbucks employees reportedly contacted the attorney general’s office, expressing feelings of exclusion or humiliation based on being White. Uthmeier labeled this as “systemic discrimination” against those deemed “non-diverse.”
“Starbucks made DEI more than just a slogan,” Uthmeier remarked when announcing the lawsuit. “They turned it into a mandatory system based on race for hiring and promotion.”
He indicated that race-focused hiring objectives and executive bonuses tied to achieving them constituted discrimination under Florida law.
The state initially aimed for $10,000 in damages for each instance of alleged racial discrimination, which could have led to penalties in the tens of millions, given that Starbucks has over 900 locations in Florida.
This investigation began in 2024 under then-Attorney General Ashley Moody, now a Republican U.S. senator, who called for scrutiny of Starbucks’ hiring methodologies.
Florida wasn’t the only state taking action against Starbucks’ DEI policies. In February 2025, then-Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey filed a federal lawsuit claiming that the company unlawfully tied executive compensation to diversity and employed race- and sex-based hiring quotas.
A federal judge dismissed that Missouri case in February 2026, determining that the state had not identified any specific resident who suffered harm due to the policies, although an appeal was filed.
Starbucks had previously contested Florida’s claims, asserting that its programs and benefits were accessible to all and compliant with the law, stating that their hiring practices are “inclusive, fair and competitive, designed to ensure the strongest candidate for every position, every time.”
