Starbucks Class Action Alleges Discrimination Against Deaf Customers

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

A Starbucks customer has filed a class action lawsuit claiming that the coffee chain discriminates against hearing-impaired individuals and violates the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Plaintiff Phillip Sullivan Jr. says that he often purchases coffee from Starbucks Coffee Company, but experiences discrimination because the stores are not fully accessible to hearing-impaired individuals like himself.

The Starbucks class action states that one of Starbucks’ stores is fully accessible, but the chain has failed to implement the systems and technology in its other stores.

According to Sullivan, Starbucks violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, which guarantees equal access to goods and services to Americans with disabilities.

The Starbucks class action alleges that Starbucks’ lack of accessibility makes Sullivan unable to have the same access and enjoyment to Starbucks’ products and services that a hearing person has.

Sullivan seeks damages on behalf of himself and all other similarly affected hearing-impaired Starbucks customers, and seeks an injunction requiring Starbucks to make their stores fully accessible to the hearing-impaired.

The Starbucks hearing-impaired accessibility class action lawsuit argues that Starbucks should know that most of its locations do not give hearing-impaired customers equal access to the goods and services offered, but continues to operate the stores without giving them access nonetheless.

In support of this claim, the Starbucks ADA compliance class action lawsuit notes that Starbucks operates one accessible coffee shop in Washington D.C.

Allegedly, the accessible store is near Gallaudet University, which is reportedly the world’s only university for deaf or hearing-impaired individuals.

Sullivan notes that Marthalee Galeota, senior manager for accessibility at Starbucks calls this store near the university fully accessible because “all the barriers are gone from being able to communicate, or from people being able to demonstrate their skills and show off the talent they have.”

Allegedly, this store is equipped with electronic pads that customers and servers use to write on and communicate with one another.

Sullivan argues that the other Starbucks stores are not equipped with this technology, and therefore, in other stores, not all barriers to access have been removed, and hearing-impaired people are less able to communicate with staff members than hearing people.

The Starbucks class action goes on to claim that Starbucks touts its app as a way for hearing-impaired customers to be able to communicate with staff members with ease, but the app has limitations, and in only being able to use the app, hearing-impaired individuals are effectively barred from being able to communicate with ease with the staff.

According to the Starbucks ADA class action, this effectively limits deaf customers’ ability to customize orders, ask questions, and receive services that would make their experience in the Starbucks equivalent to that of a hearing person.

Sullivan is represented by C.K. Lee and Anne Seelig of Lee Litigation Group PLLC.

The Starbucks ADA Class Action Lawsuit is Phillip Sullivan Jr. v. Starbucks Coffee Company, Case No. 1:19-cv-00060, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.