## Facts

- Starbucks used a uniform, two-page employment application that asked: “Have you been convicted of a crime in the last seven (7) years?” and requested listing convictions of public record.
- The reverse side included a California-specific notice stating California applicants may omit certain marijuana-possession convictions more than two years old (with stated exceptions) and diversion program information.
- Unsuccessful California job applicants brought a statewide class action alleging the application violated Labor Code provisions restricting employer inquiries into specified marijuana-related convictions and diversion-related information.
- The named plaintiffs admitted they had no marijuana-related convictions to disclose.
- Plaintiffs sought statutory damages of $200 per applicant for a class estimated at roughly 135,000 applicants.
- The trial court certified the class and denied Starbucks’ motion for summary judgment.
- Starbucks sought writ relief in the Court of Appeal to overturn the denial of summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether applicants who do not have the marijuana-related convictions addressed by the statutes are “aggrieved” and may recover statutory penalties based solely on completing an application containing an allegedly improper conviction question.
2. Whether the application, read as a whole including the California-specific disclaimer, violated the Labor Code restrictions on seeking specified marijuana-conviction and diversion-related information.
3. Whether extraordinary writ relief was appropriate to review the denial of summary judgment in this certified class action.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal granted Starbucks’ petition for writ of mandate.
- The court directed the trial court to vacate its order denying summary judgment and to enter a new order granting summary judgment for Starbucks.
- The court held the named plaintiffs lacked statutory standing because they did not have marijuana-related convictions within the statutes’ protective scope.
- The court also concluded the application’s California disclaimer showed Starbucks did not seek prohibited information when the application was read as a whole.
- The court found writ intervention justified given the large potential exposure and settlement pressure from claims the court viewed as legally defective.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory penalty provisions tied to employment protections are generally enforceable only by persons within the class the Legislature intended to protect; a claimant must be an “aggrieved” person in the sense relevant to the statutory purpose.
- Labor Code restrictions aimed at limiting employment consequences of specified minor marijuana-related convictions protect applicants who actually have such convictions; applicants outside that group lack standing to seek statutory penalties under those provisions.
- An employment application must be evaluated as a whole; a clear, state-specific instruction allowing omission of prohibited categories of marijuana-conviction and diversion information can defeat a claim that the employer is seeking barred information.
- Appellate writ relief may be warranted from a denial of summary judgment in a class action when the posture creates extreme settlement pressure and the claim has dispositive legal defects.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal compelled entry of summary judgment for Starbucks because the plaintiffs, lacking qualifying marijuana-related convictions, were not within the protected class authorized to recover statutory penalties, and because the application’s California-specific disclaimer undercut the contention that Starbucks sought prohibited conviction information.


Starbucks Corp. v. Superior Court, 168 Cal. App. 4th 1436 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)