EVERETT — A former part-time Starbucks barista in Everett filed a complaint in Snohomish County Superior Court on Tuesday, alleging the coffee company violated Everett’s new minimum wage law by refusing to give him more work hours and hiring new workers instead.
The suit seeks class action status on behalf of other Starbucks workers in Everett who were also working part-time. The company has six company-owned locations in Everett.
The lawsuit is believed to be one of the first of its kind in the U.S., said Elizabeth Ford, an assistant professor at the Seattle University School of Law, who specializes in employment law.
The lawsuit is based on Everett’s minimum wage initiative, which was approved by voters in November.
Since July 1, large companies — those with over 500 employees — are required to pay minimum-wage workers $20.24 per hour. Companies that employ between 15 and 500 workers must pay a minimum wage of $18.24 per hour. Companies with fewer than 15 employees or an annual gross revenue of less than $2 million pay the state minimum wage.
But another provision of the law, which took effect Dec. 5, requires employers to offer additional hours of work to qualified part-time employees before hiring new employees to fill those hours. It does not require employers offer an employee more work hours if the employer would be required to pay the employee overtime hours.
“Employers are expected to follow all provisions of the law,” said Nicole Webber, a spokesperson for the city of Everett. “Allegations of violations will ultimately be up to the courts to determine how the law is applied in individual cases.”
The former barista, Tom Bosserman, worked for Starbucks for 18 years at various locations in Everett until he was terminated on Aug. 19, the lawsuit said.
Bosserman mastered all of the duties of the position, the lawsuit said, and Starbucks used him as a barista trainer.
Starbucks didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.
Beginning on Dec. 5, according to the lawsuit, Starbucks did “not use a reasonable, transparent and nondiscriminatory process to distribute the hours of work among existing employees before hiring additional employees or subcontractors.”
Bosserman said he has “seen firsthand how Starbucks talks about valuing its partners while ignoring our rights,“ he said in an email Tuesday.
“My coworkers and I should have been offered the hours we needed before new people were hired over us — as is required in Everett, ” he said. “Instead, Starbucks broke the law and broke our trust. I’m standing up not just for myself, but for every barista in Everett who deserves fair treatment and a fair chance to support themselves and their families.”
Gabe Frumkin of the Seattle firm Barnard Gilitzin & Lavitt is representing Bosserman.
Starbucks’ actions have resulted in the loss of income from workers’ hourly wages and tips, Frumkin said in an email Tuesday.
“For some workers, Starbucks’ failure may mean the difference between the workers qualifying for benefits and not qualifying for benefits,” Frumkin said. “He’s (Bosserman) now taking action to hold Starbucks accountable and to see that all those impacted are made whole.”
It’s not clear how many hours per week Bosserman was working. Starbucks employees begin receiving benefits, including health insurance, starting at 20 hours a week.
According to Ford, SeaTac, Renton and Tukwila also have provisions regarding part-time workers being given preference for additional hours before new workers are hired. Ford said there are no similar provisions in state law or federal law.
“There are lots of reasons that this litigation could be tricky, including the uncomfortable question of what happens to the newly hired part-time workers,” she said.
The lawsuit seeks the penalties allowed under Everett law, twice the wages that would have been earned along with compensatory damages.
Randy Diamond: 425-339-3097; randy.diamond@heraldnet.com.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
