If You Ain’t Hirin’ White, You Ain’t Doin’ It Right

 The GOP hangs out the “Whites Only” sign:

In the lawsuit filed Tuesday in federal court, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey accused the international coffee chain of violating federal and state laws prohibiting race discrimination. Bailey said in a news release that he was filing the suit “to halt this blatant violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act in its tracks.” 

“Starbucks’ commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) is mere pretext for its actual commitment to unlawful discrimination,” Bailey wrote in the 59-page lawsuit that leans on employment data from 2020 to 2024. 

He added: “In other words, since 2020, Starbucks’s workforce has become more female and less white.” 

Bailey is asking the court for an order compelling Starbucks to immediately stop what he said amounts to “discriminatory patterns and practices.” 

“With Starbucks’ discriminatory patterns, practices, and policies, Missouri’s consumers are required to pay higher prices and wait longer for goods and services that could be provided for less had Starbucks employed the most qualified workers, regardless of their race, color, sex, or national origin," Bailey concluded in his complaint.

Only white males in Missouri can perform the complex physical task of pulling an espresso shot and of steaming milk, and the intellectually challenging task of getting the right coffee into the right cup.

Points for implicitly referencing the Commerce Clause (in a vain attempt to establish an injury that would give the court jurisdiction. It’s not really a Commerce Clause claim (no interstate commerce issue is raised), but the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is based on discrimination impacting interstate commerce. It’s neither accidental nor mercenary capitalism. The Congress was worried about the courts repealing it if it was based on human rights (which the Congress is not explicitly authorized to regulate. Yes, it is an argument for amending fundamental portions of the Constitution, putting it more in the service of persons rather than mercantilism. No, that’s not going to happen.)

It’s not even a lawsuit. It’s a Stephen Miller set of talking points with a thinly veiled racist and sexist (a two-fer!) claim for damages that should get the complaint tossed instanter on the grounds racism in the law is a pernicious category, and the only way to grant this claim is to legally enforce racism. Making a judgment on this claim itself a violation of law.

You see the problem.

I’m no fan of Starbucks, but they shouldn’t have to spend money defending a claim like this, especially from a government agency. Although I would enjoy the Missouri AG trying to present evidence to refute this:

Starbucks pushed back and defended its hiring practices. 

“We disagree with the attorney general and these allegations are inaccurate,” Starbucks said in a statement to Fox 2 St. Louis. “We are deeply committed to creating opportunity for every single one of our partners (employees). Our programs and benefits are open to everyone and lawful. Our hiring practices are inclusive, fair and competitive and designed to ensure the strongest candidate for every job every time.”

I mean, what does Missouri do when their allegations come down to: “Trust us, your Honor! White men could do it better! And that needs to be the position of the law! Any other result is discriminatory!”

Yeah, that’ll undermine the Civil Rights Act. Which goal is the only explanation I have for what they’re going for here.

NEXT: Costco’s prices would go lower if they hired only white men