Starbucks-Coffee-SignLegal troubles may be brewing at Starbucks Corp. in the wake of a recent campaign to raise social awareness.  The initiative released earlier this month at the behest of CEO Howard Schultz encouraged the company’s green-apron clad staff of baristas to scrawl “Race Together” on the outside of beverage cups.  Borne out of internal company discussions and employee forums around the country, the purpose of the campaign has been to motivate discussions about race difficulties in the US.

However, coffee isn’t the only thing getting a growing wave of detractors buzzed.  While few are doubting the authenticity of Starbucks’ social responsibility gesture, many are questioning the appropriateness of the widely-publicized companywide campaign and the onus it places on employees who may not have been properly trained on handling such discussions.  Others are downright derisive about what they perceive as Starbucks’ hubris in igniting a maelstrom amid previous accusations of its own policies.

On a practical level, employees are exposed to a panoply of potential opinions coming from the other side of the counter that they may not be prepared or particularly interested in addressing.  The possibility of stark disagreement exists, giving rise to a tinderbox of reactions.  As reported in Corporate Counsel, Edward Harold, a partner at Fisher & Phillips and member of the firm’s retail industry practice group, said “You can’t expect that because your employees had this great discussion about race [with each other] that other people are going to engage in the same level of intellectual discourse.”

“Furthermore, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, employers must prevent harassment based on race and protect their employees from it—even if the people doing the harassing are customers. Some jurisdictions even have separate laws protecting employees from discrimination based on political views and affiliations. And of course, if the discussion escalates from a verbal disagreement about racism in America to a physical confrontation, employers could be facing a lot more trouble.”

In addition to the risks between employees and customers, experts point out that the initiative creates a potentially volatile threat between employees and supervisors with differing opinions.

As quoted in Corporate Counsel, Jamie Dokovna, a shareholder at Becker & Poliakoff, asked “What if they start treating the employee differently as a result of it? It’s also possible that if the employee gets terminated or put on a less-desirable shift, he or she might incorrectly attribute the action to discrimination—even if it is really attributable to something else, like performance—and that may lead to a lawsuit.”

Other practitioners are further warning that as well-intentioned as this particular campaign may have been, Starbucks opens itself up to additional scrutiny about its own practices and policies that may put to test much of what is projected as a positive corporate image.

Having baristas write on customers’ cups concluded yesterday, March 22.