Can an employer suddenly introduce a dress code that forces staff to buy new work clothes? And if so, where is the line? This question lies at the heart of the Starbucks dress code lawsuit now making headlines. The baristas argue that the new clothing rules break the law. But is that really true? In this article, I’ll explain everything.

Read the Dutch version of this article directly on Prettybusiness.nl

Starbucks employees face a new dress code

For years, Starbucks embraced flexibility in appearance. Employees dyed their hair in every color of the rainbow, showed tattoos without covering them, and wore shorts without issue. Official guidelines existed for colors and prints, but in practice managers often turned a blind eye. As a result, the coffee chain became the place where all kinds of people worked behind the counter, and that gave it charm.

That changed abruptly in April 2025. Brian Niccol, who took charge of the company in September 2024, introduced a new strategy that included a stricter dress code. From then on, employees had to wear a black T-shirt under their apron, with only khaki, black, or denim pants permitted. The company banned tongue piercings, facial tattoos, and “theatrical” makeup, though no one clearly defined what that meant. Employees could keep only one facial piercing, and the jewelry rules tightened further. Shoes now had to be black, gray, navy, brown, tan, or white, and made of waterproof material. To soften the blow, Starbucks handed out two black T-shirts to every barista.

The company argued that the new rules made the green apron stand out more. Leaders also framed the dress code as part of a broader effort to give customers a “warmer and more welcoming” experience.

Why Starbucks employees are suing over the new dress code

Soon after Starbucks announced the new dress code, employees voiced their dissatisfaction. Their main frustration came from being forced to buy new clothing. Starbucks also banned items from the Coffee Gear Shop, the company’s webshop with unique branded apparel. That decision went down badly, as many employees had recently bought clothing there and suddenly couldn’t wear it anymore.

For that reason, Starbucks employees chose to take legal action. They argue that their employer has no right to force them to buy new clothing. They have already filed three class-action lawsuits in courts in Illinois and Colorado, with the support of the Starbucks employees’ union. On top of that, they lodged a complaint with California’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency, which also has the authority to hold Starbucks accountable.

Starbucks has a strong legal position

A Starbucks spokesperson explained that the company’s dress code matches the standards many other retailers use. The company also gave employees two free shirts.

That argument makes sense. Employers, for instance, cannot force staff to buy company-branded clothing. At Starbucks’ Coffee Gear Shop, employees could choose those items, but they were always free to wear their own clothes.

The story changes when the clothing is something you could just as easily wear outside of work. On this point, New York–based workplace dispute and mediation specialist Elena Cacabus believes Starbucks holds a strong position. Legally, the company can require this from employees. That’s why I expect Starbucks to win the Starbucks dress code lawsuit in court or with the jury.

If the company loses, however, the ruling would be both interesting and impactful. It would push other businesses that set clothing requirements to change their policies as well. Still, that outcome seems unlikely.

Warm regards,

Aileen