Starbucks Meets Resistance in ADA Class Action Lawsuit

Starbucks Corp.’s motion for summary judgment regarding a Americans with Disabilities Act class action lawsuit lodged against the company was met with strong resistance by the plaintiffs who claim that fixing the tall counter problem in only certain stores does not invalidate the nationwide Class claims.

The Starbucks ADA class action lawsuit filed in California federal court alleges that the store counters in some Starbucks locations violate ADA laws because they are too tall for individuals in wheelchairs to access without assistance.

According to the plaintiffs’ allegations, for more than a decade the popular coffee retailer has employed a litigation strategy in which any store location found in violation of the ADA will have the counters lowered. Once this is accomplished, Starbucks allegedly claims the ADA lawsuits are no longer relevant because the tall counter violation was fixed and, therefore, there is no injunctive relief available to the plaintiffs or the larger Class.

The plaintiffs state that Starbucks’ attempts to dodge the ADA class action allegations by lowering the counters in the named store locations throughout California is “nothing more than a Hail Mary” attempt to avoid Class certification.

According to the ADA class action lawsuit, “Starbucks is well aware that in the event this court certifies a class, its long-standing strategy of attempting to pick off individual plaintiffs to avoid fixing its stores across the country will no longer be viable.” In response to the allegations and the ADA court proceedings, Starbucks released a statement at the beginning of November that the coffee retailer is committed to creating “welcoming, accessible and safe” stores for all customers.

Plaintiffs Timothy Vondersaar, Orlandis Hardy Jr., Jaarome Wilson and Bernard Taruc originally filed this Starbucks ADA class action lawsuit in 2012 alleging the coffee company employed a standard store design with a tall hand-off counter that makes it impossible for individuals in wheelchairs to reach their drink. According to the Starbucks class action lawsuit, the hand-off counters in the standard store design are higher than 36 inches, the height mandated by the ADA to allow wheelchair bound individuals easy accessibility.

In light of the tall inaccessible counters, the ADA class action lawsuit alleges the stores are in violation California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act and ADA statutes. The plaintiffs are seeking certification for a nationwide Class and restitution in the form of $4,000 to be paid by Starbucks for every counter in violation of the height restriction.

In their opposition to Starbucks’ motion to dismiss the ADA class action lawsuit, the plaintiffs claimed, “Given the prevalence of these designs across the country and plaintiffs’ regular travel outside of California, simply fixing the stores that plaintiffs previously visited in California does nothing to address the ongoing and future injury stemming from these common designs.” They further claim that in order to render their Class claims moot, the coffee retailer would need to lower counters nationwide in order to comply with ADA laws.

However, according to the ADA class action lawsuit, lowering counters in violation of the ADA on a nationwide level is not a step the company is allegedly willing to take. Therefore, the certification of a nationwide ADA Class is needed to compel Starbucks to change the standard store design to comply with ADA standards, according to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs are represented by Miguel A. Custodio Jr. and Vineet Dubey of Custodio & Dubey LLP, and James K. Kawahito, Alison Y. Rose, and Shawn C. Westrick of Kawahito Shraga & Westrick LLP.

The Starbucks ADA Class Action Lawsuit is Timothy Vondersaar, et al. v. Starbucks Corp., Case No. 2:12-cv-05027, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

UPDATE: On July 18, 2016, plaintiffs asked the judge to ignore another motion by Starbucks that will “once again delay” the case and a final resolution.