If there was ever a story that brings out my inner crotchety old man, this would be it. Starbucks employees are suing their employer over the company’s new dress code.
The lawsuit comes after the company announced new guidelines on the clothing baristas are expected to wear while working, according to The Associated Press.
Starbucks is imposing new limits on what its baristas can wear under their green aprons.
Starting May 12, employees will be required to wear a solid black shirt and khaki, black or blue denim bottoms. Shirts can be short- or long-sleeved and collared or collarless, the company said in a memo released Monday. Starbucks will give each employee two free T-shirts.
Starbucks said the new dress code will make its green aprons stand out and create a sense of familiarity for customers. It comes as the company is trying to reestablish a warmer, more welcoming experience in its store.
“By updating our dress code, we can deliver a more consistent coffeehouse experience that will also bring simpler and clearer guidance to our partners, which means they can focus on what matters most, crafting great beverages and fostering connections with customers,” the company said in a post on its website.
But some workers protested the move. Starbucks Workers United, a labor group that has unionized workers at more than 550 of Starbucks’ 10,000 company-owned U.S. stores, said it told the company last week that it has already negotiated a tentative dress code agreement during bargaining sessions with the company. The union said it opposes any changes to the dress code until bargaining concludes and a labor agreement is reached.
Jasmine Leli, a Starbucks barista and union bargaining delegate, said the company should be focusing on things that improve store operations, like appropriately staffing stores and giving workers a guaranteed number of hours.
“Instead of addressing the most pressing issues baristas have been raising for years, Starbucks is prioritizing a limiting dress code that won’t improve the company’s operation,” Leli said in a statement provided by the union. “They’re forcing baristas to pay for new clothes when we’re struggling as it is on Starbucks wages and without guaranteed hours.”
Starbucks workers in three states took legal action against the coffee giant, saying it violated the law when it changed its dress code but refused to reimburse employees who had to buy new clothes.@GeeScottSr shares some advice for these workers ⤵ pic.twitter.com/KrvjGgPUHF
— KIRO Newsradio 97.3 FM🎙 (@KIRONewsradio) September 19, 2025
One employee in Davis, California, told The Independent that she had to go purchase new shoes for $60 to comply with the new policy. She also spent $86.95 on more work clothes. “I think it’s extremely tone deaf on the company’s part to expect their employees to completely redesign their wardrobe without any compensation,” she said. “A lot of us are already living paycheck to paycheck.”
The lawsuits allege that the new dress code violates state laws mandating that employers reimburse workers for expenses that mostly benefit the employer. Colorado law bars companies from imposing new expenses on their workers without their written consent.
Howard Schultz can write off his $300 million yacht on his taxes, but his workers can’t write off the cost of the clothes they must buy to comply with Starbucks’ employee dress code.
— Melanie D'Arrigo (@DarrigoMelanie) September 17, 2025
This is what a tax code written to benefit billionaires looks like. https://t.co/TxyYkgExjT
I hope the judges in these legal actions toss these lawsuits where they belong — in the circular file.
Back in my day, employers might furnish a t-shirt or other type of uniform. Even when this was the case, we had to make sure the rest of our clothing was compliant with company policy.
Also, in corporate environments that have dress codes, the employer is not expected to purchase new wardrobe items for their office employees. The very idea is ridiculous. Starbucks already provides immense benefits for their employees — yet it is still facing legal action for applying clothing standards to those responsible for interacting with the public. Sounds like a bunch of malarkey to me.