Analysis of Starbucks controversy and CEO's response

Background of the Starbucks Controversy

One year after becoming CEO of Starbucks, Kevin Johnson faced a leadership test when two black men were arrested in a Philadelphia Starbucks.  The men were waiting to meet a business associate, but they didn’t purchase anything while they were waiting. The store manager asked them to leave, and they refused, explaining that they were there to meet someone. The manager called the police because the men refused to leave, and the police arrested them.

Another patron at Starbucks recorded the arrest on her cell phone, and it quickly went viral. In an interview after the arrest, the woman who took the video mentions that she had been sitting there for a while, and she wasn’t asked to leave even though she didn’t order anything.  Additionally, the video shows the business associate of the black men show up during the arrest, and he asks the manager and the police what the men had done wrong. The general public and those who witnessed the arrest labeled it as discriminatory and racist.

This happened on a Thursday and the following Monday, Johnson said that the manager no longer worked at the store.  The arrests led to protests and sit ins at the Philadelphia Starbucks the days following the event.

In his apology statement and follow up video release shortly after the arrests, Johnson said, “The video shot by customers is very hard to watch and the actions in it are not representative of our Starbucks Mission and Values.  Creating an environment that is both safe and welcoming for everyone is paramount for every store.  Regretfully, our practices and training led to a bad outcome—the basis for the call to the Philadelphia police department was wrong.”  

Before the incident, Starbucks had no companywide policy about asking customers to leave, and the decision was left to the discretion of each store manager. Because of this flexible policy, Starbucks had become a community hub--a place where anyone could sit without being required to spend money. Johnson mentioned this community in his apology when he said Starbucks works to create an environment that is “both safe and welcoming for everyone.”

Also in his apology, Johnson outlined the investigation he and the company would undertake. The apology detailed actionable steps Starbucks leadership would follow to learn from the situation, including meeting with community stakeholders to learn what they could have done better.  Johnson took full responsibility for the actions of his employees, and he acknowledged that Starbucks customers were hurt by the arrests. Johnson acknowledged that employees needed more training, including about when to call authorities, and that the company needed to conduct a thorough analysis of the practices that lead to this incident.

Analyzing the Starbucks Case Using IRAC Method

After issuing his apology, Johnson went to Philadelphia and met with the two men face to face to involve them in dialogue on what Starbucks needed to do differently.

The week following the arrests, Starbucks announced it would temporarily close 8,000 stores to conduct unconscious bias training, which they did on May 29, 2018.  A month after the arrests, Starbucks released a new “Use of Third Place Policy,” which states that anyone can use Starbucks and its facilities without making a purchase; it also explains what managers should do if a customer becomes disruptive.  Additionally, the policy says that Starbucks seeks to create “a culture of warmth and belonging where everyone is welcome. This policy is intended to help maintain the third place environment in alignment with our mission ‘to inspire and nurture the human spirit – one person, one cup and one neighborhood at a time.’”

Answer the Questions Below in Report/Essay Format

Perform an overall analysis of the case by describing the pertinent facts that are presented, and by using the IRAC method, i.e.

(1) Issue or legal question that should be answered;

(2) Rule that applies to the case;

(3) Analysis of the facts presented;

(4) Conclusion reached. Use this framework for structuring your response. 

Did Johnson use Starbucks’ shared values as the cornerstone of his decision making after the arrests?

The issue in the given scenario is whether the actions of the police and arrest of the black men can be regarded as justified.

The case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) shall be considered to be a relevant case in this regard. In this case it was stated that the prohibition in relation to unreasonable seizures and searches as mentioned in the ‘Fourth Amendment’, shall not be considered to be violated when a suspect is stopped and frisked by police on the street without any possible cause for making an arrest, if it is reasonably believed by the police that the individual has committed, or may commit an offence, and the individual is carrying arms or weapons, and might be dangerous.

In the case of United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984), it was held that the utilization of electric beeper gadget in order to observe a container of ether, without any kind of warrant, shall result in an unlawful search.

The case of United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56 (1950) shall be considered to be a significant case in this regard. In this case, it was stated that any seizure and search shall be considered to be incidental in relation to a lawful arrest. It was stated that a reasonable search shall not have any specific fixed formula, it shall depend upon the instances of each case.

Creating Community with Shared Values

In the case of United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975), it was stated that the issue relating to race may be considered to be a factor that is resulting in the reasonable suspicion regarding any criminal activity.

In the case of United States v. Anderson, 923 F.2d 450, 455 (6th Cir. 1991), it was stated that suspicions that are grounded exclusively on the race of any particular individual cannot result in a reasonable suspicion, which may justify a ‘Terry stop’.

Applying Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) in the given scenario, it may be said that the police did not conduct any seizure or search upon the black men, and directly arrested them after the manager of the Starbucks store called the police.

In the case of United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56 (1950) it was stated that any seizure and search shall be considered to be incidental in relation to a lawful arrest. However, in the given scenario, no seizure or search were made before making the lawful arrest.

Applying United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975) in the given scenario, it may be said that the issue relating to race shall be considered to be a factor, which resulted in the reasonable suspicion regarding any criminal activity.

Applying United States v. Anderson, 923 F.2d 450, 455 (6th Cir. 1991) in the given scenario, it must be mentioned that suspicions grounded exclusively on the race of any particular individual, cannot result in a reasonable suspicion.

Conclusion

To conclude, it may be said that the actions of the police and arrest of the black men were not justified.

Johnson utilized the shared values of Starbucks to give effect to his decisions after the arrests in relation to the black men were made. For instance, introduction of the “Use of Third Place Policy” was such a decision.

References

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).

United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975).

United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984).

United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56 (1950).