Starbucks Class Action Lawsuit Claims Systemic Misclassification of Store Managers

 h

Starbucks Coffee Canada Inc. is accused of violating Ontario’s Employment Standards Act and its employment contracts by misclassifying store managers as being exempt from overtime pay, according to class action lawsuit Canada. 

The Starbucks manager misclassification class action lawsuit claims Starbucks “uniformly misclassified” store managers as exempt from overtime in violation of the Employment Standards Act.

Under the ESA, employers are required to pay overtime to employees who work more than 44 hours per week, unless the employees are covered by a specific exemption. One exemption from overtime provided for under Ontario regulations is for “a person whose work is supervisory or managerial in character and who may perform non-supervisory or non-managerial tasks on an irregular or exceptional basis.”

This exemption does not apply to “working managers” who perform the same non-exempt job duties as the individuals they supervise, according to the Starbucks manager misclassification class action lawsuit. These working managers are allegedly entitled to overtime for the hours they work in excess of 44 hours per week, just like the employees they supervise.

According to the Starbucks class action lawsuit, there is only one store manager assigned to a particular Starbucks location. The store manager reports to a district manager who monitors and supervises approximately 10 Starbucks stores.

“It is acknowledged that the Store Manager role includes the performance of supervisory and managerial duties,” the Starbucks manager misclassification class action lawsuit states. “The supervisory and managerial duties of Store Managers include hiring store employees, creating the weekly schedule, processing payroll, monitoring and maintaining inventory, attending meetings with their District Manager, and conducting one-on-one performance management meetings with store employees.”

However, Starbucks policy requires the store managers “on a regular and non-exceptional basis” to perform the same duties as employees who are classified as non-exempt from overtime.

Plaintiff Trevor Hopman of Toronto says he worked as a Starbucks store manager from 2010 through 2017. He says he worked between 50 and 80 hours per week, and would frequently work from the time the store opened until after it closed, resulting in his working 12 to 18 hour shifts.

Starbucks was allegedly aware that Trevor worked significantly longer hours than the 40 hours he was assigned to work, but continued to encourage him to work overtime hours without providing overtime pay. He claims he is owed “tens of thousands of dollars in unpaid overtime,” accrued interest and vacation pay for the hours he worked in excess of 44 hours per week.

Trevor says in the Starbucks store manager misclassification class action lawsuit that the store managers’ hours and schedules are based on standard scheduling policies by Starbucks, and that they are regularly required to work “coverage hours” of at least 26 hours per week.

“During their regularly scheduled coverage hours, Class Members are required to perform, and do perform, non-supervisory and non-managerial duties and tasks alongside the individuals they supervise,” Trevor says in the Starbucks manager misclassification class action lawsuit. These duties reportedly include opening and closing tasks, preparing food and drinks, washing dishes, taking customer orders, processing transactions, cleaning, restocking, and other daily tasks.

Unlike the individuals they supervise, who are contractually entitled to overtime pay, store managers are considered by Starbucks to be exempt from overtime.

In October 2014, Starbucks reportedly issued Store Management Scheduling Principles that required store managers to work coverage hours during the busiest days and peak times during the day. In addition, they are regularly required to work additional hours and shifts to complete the necessary tasks and duties, and are on call in the event of an emergency at the store.

These Starbucks scheduling principles essentially prohibit store managers from scheduling employees such that they would work overtime, except in an emergency situation. Instead, the store managers must cover any additional shifts.

“As a result, the Defendant induces, requires, permits or suffers Class Members to work overtime hours,” Trevor says.

However, Starbucks reportedly fails to monitor or record the actual hours worked by store managers. Although all other Starbucks employees are required to clock in and clock out at the beginning and end of their shifts, store managers are allegedly prohibited from doing so.

Trevor alleges that Starbucks “exerts systemic, pervasive pressure” on store managers to work more than 44 hours per week. If they fail to work these excess hours as required to complete their employment responsibilities, the Starbucks manager misclassification class action lawsuit alleges that the store managers risk negative performance reviews, discipline or even termination.

Trevor filed the Starbucks store manager misclassification class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and a proposed Class of current and former Starbucks Coffee Canada employees who held the position of Store Manager at Ontario Starbucks stores since Oct. 1, 2014.

The Starbucks class action seeks $50 million in general damages for Class Members.

What do you think about the Starbucks manager misclassification class action lawsuit? Should store managers be paid overtime? Tell us your thoughts in the comment section below! 

Trevor is represented by Charles Sinclair, Christine Davies, Joshua Mandryk, and Geetha Philipupillai of Goldblatt Partners LLP.

The Starbucks Manager Misclassification Class Action Lawsuit is Trevor Hopman v. Starbucks Coffee Canada Inc., Case No. CV-20-00645265-00CP, in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Canada.

Read More Lawsuit & Settlement News:

Canada AE Hospitality Class Action Says Catering Employees Misclassified

Amazon Accused of Failing to Pay Delivery Drivers Minimum Wage

Long-Term Disability Lawyer | Insurance Claim Denial Help

Canada Roundup Glyphosate Cancer Class Action Lawsuit Investigation