Starbucks Dress Code Lawsuit: Claims, States, and Company Response

The Starbucks dress code lawsuits are a set of class actions and administrative complaints filed in September 2025 by baristas in Colorado, Illinois, and California who say the chain’s new all-black clothing rules forced them to buy compliant shirts, pants, and waterproof shoes out of pocket in violation of state laws that require employers to cover work-related expenses. Workers are seeking reimbursement, statutory penalties, and class certification on behalf of thousands of employees.

What the Dress Code Requires

Starbucks announced the new policy in April 2025 as part of CEO Brian Niccol’s “Back to Starbucks” turnaround, and it took effect on May 12, 2025. Employees across North America must wear a solid black top (crewneck, collared, or button-up) under the green apron, with bottoms limited to khaki, black, or blue denim. Shoes have to be waterproof or water-resistant in muted colors (black, brown, gray, tan, or white) and must fully cover the foot.¹ The policy also restricts facial piercings to one small stud, bans face tattoos and tongue piercings, prohibits nail polish and artificial nails, and bars “theatrical makeup.”²

Starbucks gave each employee two company-branded black T-shirts free of charge. Workers say two shirts are not enough for a full work week, and that the rules also required them to buy new pants and waterproof shoes they did not already own.¹ According to KCRA, employees who arrived out of compliance were not allowed to start their shifts, forcing some to choose between buying clothes immediately or losing a day’s pay.²

Where the Cases Were Filed

On September 17, 2025, workers backed by Starbucks Workers United filed class actions in Colorado and Illinois state courts and administrative complaints in California. Each rests on the same theory: the dress code is prescriptive enough to function as a uniform, and state law obligates Starbucks to pay for it.

Colorado

Shay Mannick, et al. v. Starbucks Corporation (No. 2025CV33336) was filed in the Second Judicial District Court and assigned to Judge Jon Olafson. Lead plaintiff Shay Mannik, a store supervisor, reported spending $110.63 on compliant clothing. The four named plaintiffs collectively reported individual expenses ranging from about $88 to more than $253, including waterproof shoes.³⁴

The suit invokes the Colorado Wage Claim Act, which bars employers from imposing work-related expenses on employees without written consent and requires employers to pay for “special apparel” that is a condition of employment. Plaintiffs argue the unreimbursed costs pushed some lower-wage workers below the state minimum wage ($14.91 statewide and $18.81 in Denver). A willful violation carries a penalty of triple the amount owed or $3,000 per employee, whichever is greater. The proposed class covers roughly 5,000 Colorado workers who spent their own money on compliance since April 2025. Plaintiffs are represented by Joseph Goldhammer of Rosenblatt Gosch & Reinken, with attorneys from Towards Justice and James & Hoffman.³⁵

Illinois

Violet Nijenhuis, et al. v. Starbucks Corporation (No. 2025CH09586) was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County. Three named plaintiffs sought reimbursement for amounts ranging from $10 (one worker’s cost to remove a nose piercing that violated the policy) to nearly $149 for compliant shirts, jeans, and shoes.⁴ The complaint cites the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, which requires employers to reimburse workers for “all reasonable expenditures or losses required of the employee in the discharge of employment duties and that inure to the primary benefit of the employer.” Plaintiffs are represented by Robert E. Bloch and Josiah A. Groff of Dowd Bloch Bennett Cervone Auerbach & Yokich.⁵

California

California workers filed administrative complaints with the state’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency rather than going straight to court. The complaints cite California Labor Code Section 2802, which requires employers to reimburse all “necessary expenditures” incurred in the course of employment. Named complainant Brooke Allen, a Davis barista, reported spending $60.09 on compliant shoes and $86.95 on black shirts and jeans.⁶ Attorney Connie K. Chan of Altshuler Berzon represents the California workers, who have said they will file a class-action lawsuit if the agency declines to pursue penalties.⁵

Dress Code or Uniform? The Question Courts Will Have to Answer

The central legal dispute is whether Starbucks’ clothing rules are specific enough to cross from a general dress code into what state labor laws treat as a uniform. That line matters. Employers can typically require “business casual” without paying for it, but once the rules become narrow enough that the clothing primarily serves the employer’s branding, reimbursement obligations attach under many state laws.

Federal law sets a floor rather than a ceiling. The Fair Labor Standards Act does not require employers to provide uniforms, but it treats the cost of employer-required clothing as a business expense that cannot reduce a worker’s pay below the federal minimum wage.⁷ The state laws at issue here reach further. California, Illinois, and Colorado each require affirmative reimbursement for employer-mandated expenses regardless of whether the worker still earns above the minimum.

How courts draw the line varies by state. Washington, for example, considers clothing a “uniform” if it is an “uncommon color” or bears an employer logo, but treats items in “common colors” (white, tan, or blue tops; tan, black, blue, or gray bottoms) as part of an ordinary dress code the employer need not pay for.⁸ Whether solid black qualifies as “common” is likely to be contested. Starbucks can argue that black shirts and jeans are ordinary wardrobe items. Plaintiffs counter that the combination of an all-black top, specific pant shades, waterproof footwear, and grooming restrictions functions as a branded uniform once the green apron goes over it.

What Starbucks Says

Starbucks has not publicly addressed the specific legal claims in court filings, and the company’s press office did not respond to at least one media request for comment on the lawsuits.³ In public statements the company has framed the dress code as a customer-experience initiative meant to give employees “clearer guidance” and let the green apron “stand out.” Starbucks has emphasized the two free shirts and said it remains committed to being “the best job in retail,” noting that hourly workers earn an average of $30 per hour in pay and benefits, including healthcare, free college tuition, and paid family leave.⁹

Separately, on April 17, 2025, an NLRB administrative law judge ruled in a related case (No. 12-CA-321037) that Starbucks violated the National Labor Relations Act by enforcing the dress code at a unionized store without bargaining, though the judge dismissed claims that the policy was motivated by anti-union animus.¹⁰ That ruling addresses the bargaining process, not the reimbursement question at the heart of the September 2025 suits.

Where the Cases Stand

As of mid-2026, the Illinois and Colorado class actions remain pending in state court with no reported rulings, settlements, or class certification decisions. The California administrative complaints are still before the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, and no California lawsuit has been filed.² Colorado workers who bought clothing to comply with the policy since April 2025 fall within the proposed class in that case; Illinois workers are covered by the Cook County suit; California workers with out-of-pocket costs can watch for a follow-on class action if the state agency declines to act.

1
Starbucks. Updating Our Dress Code for a More Consistent Coffeehouse Experience
2
KCRA. Starbucks Workers Sue Over Company’s New Dress Code
3
Courthouse News Service. Colorado Baristas Sue Starbucks Over Costs to Meet New Dress Code
4
HR Dive. Starbucks Workers Legal Action Reimbursement Dress Code
5
Top Class Actions. Starbucks Class Action Claims Coffee Chain Failed to Reimburse Workers for New Dress Code
6
CBS News. Starbucks Workers Sue Costs Company’s New Dress Code
7
U.S. Department of Labor. Fact Sheet #16: Deductions From Wages for Uniforms and Other Facilities Under the FLSA
8
Washington State Department of Labor & Industries. Uniforms
9
The Hill. Starbucks Dress Code Lawsuit
10
NLRB Edge. ALJ Dings Starbucks for Dress Code