Did Starbucks Break New York City’s Fair Workweek Scheduling Law? $38.9 Million
/
Alleged labor law violations led to a multi-year investigation into Starbucks’ scheduling practices, resulting in a $38.9 million settlement, the largest worker-protection resolution in New York City history.
Matter: DCWP v. Starbucks Corporation (Consent Order / Settlement (administrative enforcement))
Enforcing agency: NYC Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP)
Public announcement date: December 1, 2025
Total settlement: $38.9 million
Restitution: $35.5+ million to workers
Civil penalties/costs: $3.4 million
Workers covered: 15,000+ hourly NYC Starbucks workers (July 2021–July 2024)
Note: This was not a court class action with a judicial “case number” in the way civil lawsuits are docketed; it was a DCWP enforcement matter resolved by a Consent Order (DCWP’s settlement format).
The Parties Involved: The Workers and Their Employer
The DCWP stated that the settlement will benefit more than 15,000 hourly Starbucks employees in New York City who worked during the specified period. Starbucks Corporation, the employer, is subject to the agreement, which covers scheduling practices at over 300 city locations.
A Brief Timeline of Events Leading to the Settlement:
2022: The investigation began due to multiple worker complaints at Starbucks locations.
Using employee reports and company data they gathered as evidence, the DCWP identified broader patterns of alleged violations, leading to an expanded investigation across Starbucks locations citywide.
Over 500,000 violations of the city’s Fair Workweek Law have been identified since 2021.
The case was resolved through a Consent Order requiring monetary relief and future compliance with labor laws.
What Was the Main Issue Being Considered During the Investigation?
The central issue considered was whether Starbucks’ scheduling and hours practices for New York City hourly workers violated the Fair Workweek Law, particularly regarding predictable schedules, access to additional hours, and limits on reductions in hours and on schedule changes.
An Overview of the Alleged Violations Workers Cited:
Unstable and unpredictable schedules made it difficult for workers to plan for child care, education, secondary employment, and other obligations.
Unlawful weekly hour reductions; Starbucks routinely reduced its employees’ hours by 15% in one week, which is a violation of Fair Workweek protections.
Blocking access to additional hours through picking up shifts, which contributed to involuntary part-time employment.
What Are the Protections Provided by Fair Workweek for NYC Workers?
Employers must provide schedules 14 days in advance
Employers must offer premium pay for schedule changes
Employers must allow employees to decline extra time
Employers must allow employees to pick up new shifts before hiring new staff
Employers may not schedule workers for consecutive closing and opening shifts without written consent and a $100 premium
Hour reductions are limited to over 15% without just cause
Learn More About the Starbucks Settlement for NYC Workers:
The settlement totals $38.9 million, including:
$35.5+ million in restitution to impacted workers
$3.4 million in civil penalties and costs
A forward-looking requirement that Starbucks comply with the Fair Workweek Law going forward
The DCWP stated that most hourly Starbucks employees in New York City will receive $50 for each week worked between July 4, 2021, and July 7, 2024. For example, an employee who worked 78 weeks could receive $3,900.
The DCWP also stated that employees who experience violations after July 7, 2024, may be eligible for compensation by filing a complaint. The settlement also addressed issues related to layoffs and reinstatement rights under the law.
Worker-Protection Settlement: Why Was This a 2025 Landmark Case?
The DCWP v. Starbucks matter was notable for a few reasons:
1. Scale of Relief & Coverage: The almost $40M settlement covered over 15,000 workers, making this one of the most significant scheduling-law enforcement outcomes in 2025.
2. Fair Workweek Enforcement: This case shows that Fair Workweek laws are enforceable and that substantial restitution and penalties can be obtained for violations involving hour reductions and shift management.
3. Operational Practices & Liability: The DCWP reported over 500,000 violations, demonstrating how widespread scheduling decisions across many locations resulted in massive exposure.
FAQ: DCWP v. Starbucks & Fair Workweek for NYC Workers
Q: What is NYC’s Fair Workweek Law intended to protect?
A: The law is designed to protect the rights of fast food workers by requiring more predictable schedules, limiting last-minute changes and hour reductions, and ensuring workers have a fair opportunity to claim shifts that become available.
Q: Is this different from an FLSA overtime case?
A: Yes, the Fair Workweek Law addresses scheduling stability and hours practices, including advance notice, schedule changes, access to shifts, and protections related to hour reductions, rather than overtime hour calculations, classification, or overtime pay rate calculations.
Q: Does a “Consent Order” mean Starbucks admitted wrongdoing?
A: Not necessarily. A consent order is a settlement document used by the DCWP to resolve allegations and impose enforceable terms, such as payment and compliance obligations.
Q: What should employees do if they think their schedule rights were violated?
A: Workers should document schedule postings, changes, and hour reductions, and may seek relief by filing a complaint with the DCWP or consulting legal counsel regarding potential claims under relevant laws.
Individuals who believe their employer manipulated schedules, unlawfully reduced hours, restricted access to available shifts, or otherwise violated wage-and-hour or worker-protection laws may seek assistance from the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP. The firm’s offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago are available to discuss potential claims for unpaid compensation and accountability.
