Starbucks Corp. v. Superior Court
Court of Appeals of California
86 Cal. Rptr. 3d 482 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)
Starbucks's (defendant) nationwide job application asked about convictions within seven years on its front page, with a California-specific disclaimer buried in a 346-word paragraph in smaller font on the back stating marijuana convictions over two years old need not be disclosed; named class plaintiffs Lords and Yeung (plaintiffs) admitted at deposition they had read the entire form, including the disclaimer, and understood they weren't required to disclose old marijuana convictions, yet still sought statutory damages for roughly 135,000 California applicants, and the trial court denied Starbucks summary judgment.
Whether a job applicant who subjectively understands that an ambiguous application form does not require disclosure of prohibited information may recover statutory damages.