Appeals Court Reinstates Transgender Man's Discrimination Lawsuit Against Starbucks
- By
- Carlos Santoscoy
- | December 28, 2017
The Minnesota Court of Appeals has reinstated a transgender man's discrimination complaint against Starbucks.
Plaintiff Paul Bray, 43, alleges in his lawsuit that employees at two Starbucks locations discriminated against him because of his gender identity, the Star Tribune reported.
A district court earlier this year dismissed Bray's complaint, saying that he had failed to prove that employees had discriminated against him based on his transgender status.
A three-judge panel of the appeals court disagreed. Judge Michelle Larkin wrote that “there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Starbucks discriminated against Bray because he was transgender.”
A Starbucks representative called the ruling “disappointing” and said that the coffee giant was considering its options.
Bray alleges that service at an Eden Prairie Starbucks declined after he began to transition in September 2012. He legally changed his name to Paul Allen Bray in March 2013 and informed an employee, Adam Voth, that he was transitioning from female to male.
When Bray complained to a shift manager about bad service, he was informed that the employee was uncomfortable because Bray was not “a real man.” Bray stopped patronizing the Eden Prairie location after another employee appeared disgusted when handing Bray his drink, according to the ruling.
Bray claims that at a Starbucks shop in Edina two employees abruptly left the counter after serving him. Bray said that as he sat in the shop he overheard a female employee telling another, “I want to have sex with him” after glaring at his body. (Bray believes an employee from the Eden Prairie location informed Edina employees about his status.)
Bray filed his lawsuit in July, 2014 after a manager in the Edina store dismissed his complaint.
Bray alleges that he suffered “significant emotional distress, shame, humiliation and embarrassment.”
Larkin wrote that Starbucks “has not articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its employees' actions.”