Court Snuffs Claim Over Starbucks’ Pot Question

(CN) - A group of Starbucks job applicants were not harmed by a question regarding past marijuana use because none of them failed to be hired because of their answers, a California appeals court ruled.

Donald Brown, Eric Lords and Hon Yeung led a class of 135,000 unsuccessful job applicants who claimed Starbucks asked an illegal question about marijuana convictions that are more than two years old.

They sued Starbucks for $200 per applicant, which would add up to $26 million.

The trial court denied Starbucks' motion for summary judgment, but Justice Ikola reversed the decision.

"Starbucks attempted to disclaim an interest in such prohibited information," Ikola wrote, "and two of the plaintiffs understood Starbucks not to be seeking it."

Ikola also noted that the plaintiffs did not reveal any marijuana convictions.

"Nothing in the statutes in question authorizes job applicants to automatically recover $200 per person without proof they were aggrieved persons."

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit