(Photo
by
David
Lat)
Pour
one
out
for
Missouri
prosecutors!
A
year
ago,
the
state
sued
Starbucks
for
failing
to
hire
enough
white,
male
baristas,
forcing
consumers
“to
pay
higher
prices
and
wait
longer
for
goods
and
services
that
could
be
provided
for
less
had
Starbucks
employed
the
most
qualified
workers.”
Implicit
in
this
is
the
assumption
that
you
need
a
flat
white
dude
to
make
a
flat
white.
Or,
more
specifically,
that
medium-roast
managers
are
less
qualified
than
their
blonde
peers
—
something
for
which
no
evidence
was
presented.
But
the
effort
to
grind
Starbucks
over
the
company’s
DEI
policies
fell
flat
last
week
when
a
federal
judge
tossed
the
legally
undrinkable
swill.
Looks
like
the
state’s
top
prosecutor
ought
to
worry
more
about
the
quality
of
her
lawyering
than
the
race
of
the
brew
master.
Bitter
Beans
It
all
started
so
well!
Andy
Bailey,
who
was
then
Missouri’s
attorney
general,
was
desperate
to
catch
President
Trump’s
attention.
He’d
been
passed
over
to
lead
the
Justice
Department
in
favor
of
Pam
Bondi.
But
he
still
had
high
hopes,
and
so
he
used
his
position
as
state
AG
to
file
a
bunch
of
culture
war
trollsuits.
In
February,
he
sued
the
ubiquitous
coffee
company
alleging
that
it
unlawfully
discriminated
against
white
men.
The
complaint
pointed
to
Starbucks’
2021
Global
Environmental
&
Social
Impact
Report,
which
laid
out
aspirational
goals
for
women,
LGBTQ+
employees,
and
BIPOC
in
management
and
executive
roles.
AG
Bailey
insisted
that
this
had
cost
the
citizens
of
Missouri
dearly,
although
he
was
a
little
cloudy
on
exactly
how
lesbians
in
management
raised
the
price
of
a
venti.
Nor
did
the
complaint
point
to
any
individual
Missouri
resident
who’d
been
harmed
by
Starbucks’
policies
—
no
white
dude
who
lost
out
on
his
big
promotion
because
of
“invidious”
DEI,
no
executive
who
had
his
bonus
cut
based
on
failure
to
put
enough
Latinos
in
management.
Instead,
he
gestured
vaguely
in
the
direction
of
the
“234
job
openings
in
Missouri,
ranging
from
barista
to
store
manager
to
district
manager”
and
insisted
that
“Starbucks’
policies
harm
the
many
Missourians
whom
[sic]
work,
or
would
like
to
work,
at
Starbucks,
but
have
been,
are
being,
or
will
be
discriminated
against
as
future
victims
on
the
basis
of
their
race,
sex,
or
inclusion
in
other
protected
groups.”
Bailey
also
sweetened
the
pot
with
a
gratuitous
attack
on
the
term
“LatinX.”
And
it
worked!
Well,
not
in
court.
But
Bailey
did
manage
to
get
Trump’s
attention
long
enough
to
get
himself
made
deputy
director
of
the
FBI.
All
he
had
to
do
was
babysit
Dan
Bongino
for
a
few
months
until
the
podcaster
got
bored
and
wandered
back
to
his
studio.
If
Bailey
keeps
his
head
down,
maybe
he’ll
be
running
the
FBI
when
Kash
Patel
finally
manages
to
wear
out
his
welcome!
No
Filter
Meanwhile
back
in
Missouri,
Bailey’s
successor
Catherine
Hanaway
was
having
a
lot
less
fun
as
the
Starbucks
case
percolated
through
the
court
system.
In
October,
Senior
Judge
John
Ross
ordered
the
state
to
fix
all
the
broken
links
in
its
pleading
instanter.
“Plaintiff’s
complaint
is
heavily
reliant
on
language
that
purports
to
be
quoted
from
various
reports
and
documents
authored
by
Defendant
or
otherwise
describing
Defendant’s
policies,
practices,
and
strategic
objectives,”
he
sniffed,
noting
that
“it
has
come
to
the
Court’s
attention
that
the
majority
of
the
links
to
these
electronic
documents
are
no
longer
functional.”
And
then
he
French
pressed
the
state’s
case
into
oblivion
for
failure
to
state
any
plausible
theory
of
standing
or
legal
claim
for
relief.
“Plaintiff
failed
to
allege
that
any
actual
Missouri
residents
applied
for
an
open
position
in
Missouri
and
were
rejected,
were
passed
over
for
promotion,
were
disciplined
or
demoted
unfairly,
or
tried
and
failed
to
take
advantage
of
any
other
benefit
of
employment
with
Defendant
because
of
a
protected
characteristic,”
he
wrote
incredulously,
noting
that,
if
such
victims
of
discrimination
exist,
they
are
perfectly
free
to
sue
on
their
own
accounts.
He
also
noted
that
Missouri
supplied
exactly
zero
evidence
connecting
the
“allegedly
unqualified
employees
who
were
hired
based
on
‘non-merit
considerations’”
to
the
“presumed
skew
in
prices,
wait
times,
and
product
quality.”
And
Judge
Ross
wasn’t
done!
“Even
if
Plaintiff
did
have
standing
to
pursue
the
claims
of
individual
citizens,
Plaintiff’s
claims
are
still
doomed,”
he
continued,
noting
that
the
Missouri
Attorney
General
“lacks
statutory
authority
to
bring
claims
under
Title
VII,
Section
1981,
or
the
[Missouri
Human
Rights
Act].”
In
short,
this
case
was
incompetently
pled
and
defective
both
procedurally
and
substantively.
It’s
functionally
a
press
release
that
allowed
Bailey
to
congratulate
himself
for
protecting
his
constituents
“from
a
company
that
actively
engages
in
systemic
race
and
sex
discrimination”
and
then
waste
a
lot
of
court
resources
cleaning
up
his
home
brew
slop.
It
was
a
cup
of
frothy
indignation,
and
now
it’s
just
backwash.
But
…
Andy
Bailey
got
his
promotion,
so
assume
that
the
FBI
will
be
raiding
a
Starbucks
near
you
soon.
Subscribe
to
read
more
at
Law
and
Chaos….
Liz
Dye produces
the
Law
and
Chaos Substack and podcast. You
can
subscribe
by
clicking
the
logo:
