Joel Gabriel Johnson V Starbucks
- Joel Johnson
- May 16
- 10 min read
Updated: May 19
Copy of Complaint
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PIERCE
JOEL GABRIEL JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION, a Washington Corporation, Defendant.
Case No.: 25-2-08128-7 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (1) Discrimination (RCW 49.60) (2) Retaliation for Free Expression (Art. I, § 5 WA Const.) (3) False Reporting to Law Enforcement (RCW 9A.76.175) (4) Negligent Hiring, Supervision, and Training (5) Premises Liability (6) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (7) Defamation – Libel and Slander Per Se under Washington Law
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
I. PARTIES
Plaintiff Joel Gabriel Johnson is a resident of Bellingham, Washington, an African American man, a long-time Starbucks Rewards member, and a shareholder of the Defendant company.
Defendant Starbucks Corporation is a Washington Corporation with its principal place of business in Seattle, Washington. It owns and operates Starbucks Store #10245, located at 1723 S. 72nd Street, Tacoma, WA.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
Jurisdiction is proper under RCW 2.08.010. Venue is proper in Pierce County pursuant to RCW 4.12.025 because the events at issue occurred in this county.
III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
On April 15, 2025, at approximately 5:00 p.m., Plaintiff Joel Gabriel Johnson entered Starbucks Store #10245 in Tacoma, Washington, to use the restroom and purchase a beverage.
Upon entry, Plaintiff was greeted by a polite African American male employee, approximately in his mid-20s, who treated him with respect and courtesy.
As Plaintiff politely inquired whether a code was needed to access the restroom, a different employee—a white female, approximately in her mid-20s—loudly interrupted the conversation, shouting, "Are you going to make a purchase?" Her tone was hostile, accusatory, and loud enough to draw attention from nearby customers.
Plaintiff, startled by the aggression, calmly approached the interrupting employee and asked for her name to properly report her conduct. The employee refused to provide her name and escalated her hostility toward Plaintiff.
Shortly thereafter, "EJ," a white female shift supervisor in her early 20s, approached Plaintiff. Without asking questions or attempting to de-escalate the situation, she raised her voice, pointed forcefully toward the exit, and demanded that Plaintiff leave the premises immediately.
Humiliated, Plaintiff exited the store. Standing on the adjacent public sidewalk, Plaintiff initiated a boisterous but constitutionally protected protest against Starbucks’ discriminatory treatment. His protest involved critical speech challenging Starbucks’ practices but did not involve threats, violence, or obstruction.
During the protest, a white male customer exited his vehicle from the drive-thru lane and approached Plaintiff aggressively. Without provocation, the customer physically assaulted Plaintiff, by pushing and kicking him. Scared for his life the plaintiff ran from the assailant while they continued making terroristic threats and threatening gestures.
Plaintiff immediately called 911 to report the assault. He briefly followed the assailant to maintain line of sight for responding officers, then returned to the vicinity of the store to await law enforcement, following dispatcher instructions.
Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, Starbucks employees had already called 911 and made false reports portraying Plaintiff as a threatening aggressor.
Three Tacoma Police Department officers responded. Upon arrival, they approached Plaintiff with gloves on, prepared for physical detention based solely on the false narrative relayed by Starbucks employees.
Plaintiff calmly explained the assault he had suffered to two officers while a third officer entered the Starbucks to obtain additional employee statements.
After meeting with Starbucks employees inside the store, the third officer returned and informed Plaintiff that store employees had accused him of being the aggressor and assailant.
The officers pressured Plaintiff to sign a trespass warning under threat of retaliatory arrest, effectively barring him from Starbucks properties.
Plaintiff, concerned for his safety and fearing wrongful arrest based on Starbucks’ false statements, reluctantly signed the trespass warning under duress.
Plaintiff offered to show officers video evidence captured via Facebook Live documenting the incident. Officers refused to review the footage, citing their reliance on the Starbucks employees' accounts.
Following the incident, Plaintiff submitted a formal complaint to Starbucks’ corporate office. Starbucks acknowledged receipt of the complaint but failed to issue any apology, retraction, investigation findings, or corrective action.
As a direct and proximate result of Starbucks' discriminatory, defamatory, and retaliatory conduct, Plaintiff suffered:
a. Emotional distress, including anxiety, fear of public spaces, humiliation, and sleep disturbance; b. Reputational harm impacting his political career prospects and standing in the community; c. Jeopardy to his foster care certification process, requiring a flawless background; d. Lingering fear of engaging in protected expressive activities due to fear of retaliatory law enforcement involvement.
Plaintiff’s experiences were not isolated, but part of a broader, systemic failure by Starbucks to prevent racially biased incidents despite years of public pledges.
IV. CAUSES OF ACTION
22. Starbucks Corporation is liable under the following causes of action, each of which is supported by Washington law and applied directly to the facts stated above:
Cause of Action 1: Discrimination in a Place of Public Accommodation (RCW 49.60)
23. Starbucks is a place of public accommodation as defined in RCW 49.60.040(2), and is therefore subject to the anti-discrimination provisions of RCW 49.60.030.
24. Plaintiff, a person who is African American, was denied restroom access, treated with hostility, and forcibly removed from the store, while other patrons were not. This discriminatory treatment constituted a denial of services on the basis of race.
25. In Demelash v. Ross Stores, Inc., 105 Wn. App. 508 (2001), the court held that discriminatory treatment of a Black customer—without any direct racial slurs—could establish a violation of RCW 49.60 based on disparate impact.
26. In Fell v. Spokane Transit Authority, 128 Wn.2d 618 (1996), the Washington Supreme Court recognized that facially neutral policies may still be unlawfully discriminatory if applied disproportionately to people in protected classes.
27. In Blackwell v. DSHS, 131 Wn.2d 547 (1997), the court confirmed that discrimination can be established through circumstantial evidence, including patterns of disparate treatment.
28. These cases support Plaintiff’s claim that the discriminatory enforcement of Starbucks’ restroom policy and the resulting denial of service violated RCW 49.60 and caused actionable harm.
Cause of Action 2: Retaliation for Free Expression (Art. I, § 5 WA Const.)
29. Article I, § 5 of the Washington Constitution protects expressive conduct more broadly than the federal First Amendment, including boisterous but non-violent protest in public spaces.
30. Plaintiff’s sidewalk protest was peaceful and constitutionally protected. Starbucks retaliated by contacting police and making knowingly false reports that led to his unlawful treatment.
31. In State v. Reece, 110 Wn.2d 766 (1988), the Washington Supreme Court held that Washington’s free speech protections are broader than their federal counterparts.
32. In Dawson v. Daly, 120 Wn.2d 782 (1993), the Court ruled that public retaliation against protected speech violates Article I, § 5.
33. In Bering v. SHARE, 106 Wn.2d 212 (1986), the Court held that expressive conduct, even when provocative or emotionally charged, is entitled to constitutional protection under Washington law.
34. These cases establish that Starbucks’ actions—particularly the false and retaliatory call to law enforcement—were unlawful and caused Plaintiff harm in direct violation of state constitutional rights.
Cause of Action 3: False Reporting to Law Enforcement (RCW 9A.76.175)
35. RCW 9A.76.175 prohibits any person from knowingly making materially false or misleading statements to a public servant.
36. Starbucks employees knowingly misrepresented Plaintiff as the aggressor in a physical altercation and protest, when in fact he was the victim of assault and engaged in protected activity.
37. In State v. Godsey, 131 Wn. App. 278 (2006), the court held that false statements that influence police conduct—even in the absence of an arrest—violate RCW 9A.76.175.
38. In State v. Johnston, 156 Wn. App. 408 (2010), the court confirmed that materially misleading narratives given to law enforcement can support criminal liability.
39. Starbucks’ false report led police to threaten arrest, coerce Plaintiff into signing a trespass warning, and disregard offered video evidence—actions directly caused by their violation of this statute.
Cause of Action 4: Negligent Hiring, Supervision, and Training
40. Starbucks owed a duty to the public to properly hire, train, and supervise employees in non-discriminatory customer service, de-escalation, and lawful engagement with law enforcement.
41. Starbucks employees escalated a peaceful inquiry, failed to de-escalate a racially charged conflict, permitted a third-party assault to occur unimpeded, and made retaliatory calls to police.
42. In Niece v. Elmview Group Home, 131 Wn.2d 39 (1997), the Court held that employers are liable when they fail to supervise employees who cause foreseeable harm.
43. In Doe v. LDS Church, 141 Wn. App. 407 (2007), the failure to train or supervise staff on responding appropriately to misconduct was a breach of duty to the public.
44. Starbucks’ training deficiencies and lack of oversight were direct causes of Plaintiff’s injury and emotional distress.
Cause of Action 5: Premises Liability
45. As a business invitee, Plaintiff was entitled to a reasonably safe environment while at the Starbucks premises, including protection from foreseeable third-party violence.
46. The hostile treatment inside the store triggered a volatile environment, and Starbucks failed to de-escalate or protect Plaintiff from the foreseeable physical assault that followed.
47. In McKown v. Simon Property Group, 182 Wn.2d 752 (2015), the Washington Supreme Court held that property owners can be liable for failing to protect patrons from foreseeable criminal acts.
48. In Wilkinson v. Chiwawa Cmtys., 180 Wn.2d 241 (2014), the court reaffirmed a business’s duty to act when there is notice or foreseeability of risk to patrons.
49. Starbucks breached its duty of care by ignoring the risk of harm and failing to act appropriately to ensure Plaintiff’s safety.
Cause of Action 6: Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED)
50. A defendant is liable for NIED when they breach a duty of care and cause foreseeable emotional harm to the plaintiff. This claim does not require physical injury.
51. Plaintiff’s harm was the direct result of Starbucks’ discriminatory conduct, failure to protect him, and use of law enforcement to suppress his rights.
52. In Hunsley v. Giard, 87 Wn.2d 424 (1976), the Court established NIED as a viable cause of action where emotional harm results from negligent acts.
53. In Gain v. Carroll Mill Co., 114 Wn.2d 254 (1990), emotional harm alone was sufficient for recovery where caused by workplace misconduct.
54. In Contreras v. Crown Zellerbach, 88 Wn.2d 735 (1977), the Court upheld damages for emotional distress caused by racial discrimination.
55. Starbucks’ negligence in this case created foreseeable emotional injuries, including humiliation, fear of police retaliation, and damage to Plaintiff’s public standing.
Cause of Action 7: Defamation – Libel and Slander Per Se under Washington Law
Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
Under Washington law, defamation includes both libel (written) and slander (spoken), and is actionable when a false, unprivileged statement of fact is published or communicated to a third party, and it tends to harm the reputation of the subject, lower them in the estimation of the community, or deter others from associating with them. See Mohr v. Grant, 153 Wn.2d 812, 822, 108 P.3d 768 (2005).
To state a claim for defamation, a plaintiff must establish: (1) falsity; (2) an unprivileged communication; (3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and (4) damages, unless the statement is defamatory per se. See Seaquist v. Caldier, 8 Wn. App. 2d 556, 568, 438 P.3d 606 (2019); Valley View Indus. Park v. City of Redmond, 107 Wn.2d 621, 626, 733 P.2d 182 (1987).
In Washington, statements that falsely accuse a person of committing a crime are defamatory per se. See Maison de France, Ltd. v. Mais Oui!, Inc., 126 Wn. App. 34, 41, 108 P.3d 787 (2005); Spencer v. King County, 39 Wn. App. 201, 206, 692 P.2d 874 (1984).
On or about April 15, 2025, employees of Defendant Starbucks Corporation made and/or caused to be made one or more false reports to the Tacoma Police Department stating that Plaintiff Joel Gabriel Johnson was an “assailant,” or “aggressor” despite the absence of any criminal conduct by Plaintiff.
These false statements were made after Plaintiff engaged in peaceful protest activity and was physically assaulted by a third party outside Starbucks Store #10245.
Plaintiff made law enforcement aware of available video footage that would have disproved the accusation, but Defendant’s employees nevertheless falsely identified Plaintiff as the aggressor in their report to law enforcement.
The report that Plaintiff was an “assailant” or “aggressor” constitutes a false statement of fact, is capable of being proven false, and was not a protected expression of opinion.
The defamatory statement was communicated to third parties, including the Tacoma Police Department, and possibly to Starbucks corporate security, risk, or legal departments, as well as external legal representatives.
Defendant’s employees acted with negligence, if not actual malice, in making the false report, as they either knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded evidence to the contrary. See LaMon v. Butler, 112 Wn.2d 193, 197–98, 770 P.2d 1027 (1989).
The false report identifying Plaintiff as an assailant was defamatory per se, as it falsely accused Plaintiff of criminal conduct and exposed him to public contempt, ridicule, and disgrace.
As a result, Plaintiff has suffered reputational harm, emotional distress, and humiliation, and has been forced to explain or refute the defamatory report to others, including law enforcement and members of the community.
Plaintiff’s offer to provide video evidence was ignored, and no reasonable investigation occurred directly following Starbucks’ communication of the false accusation.
The defamatory report caused and continues to cause Plaintiff tangible and intangible injury, including reputational damage, psychological suffering, and impediments to future public advocacy or employment and state licensing.
Starbucks is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the acts of its employees committed within the course and scope of their employment. See Robel v. Roundup Corp., 148 Wn.2d 35, 53, 59 P.3d 611 (2002).
Plaintiff is entitled to presumed damages under the doctrine of defamation per se, and further seeks all available remedies including general and special damages, equitable relief, and punitive damages as may be permitted by law.
V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
72. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in his favor and award the following relief:
a. A declaration that Defendant’s conduct violated Plaintiff’s rights under Washington law, including RCW 49.60 and Article I, § 5 of the Washington Constitution;
b. For general compensatory damages, in an amount to be proven at trial,including damages for emotional distress, loss of dignity, reputational harm, and associated impacts on Plaintiff’s public standing and certification processes;
c. Injunctive and equitable relief requiring Starbucks Corporation to:
Correct the record and withdraw any false reports from public or private files;
Review and revise its public accommodation and anti-discrimination policies;
Implement robust training and supervision for all employees regarding de-escalation, racial bias, and customer interactions; and
Establish a uniform policy for preservation of video and incident-related evidence in all discrimination-related complaints;