Core Viewpoint - Starbucks workers in three states have initiated legal action against the company, claiming it unlawfully changed its dress code without reimbursing employees for necessary clothing purchases [1][6][13]. Group 1: Legal Actions - Employees have filed class-action lawsuits in state courts in Illinois and Colorado, and complaints with California's Labor and Workforce Development Agency [1][2][9]. - If the California agency does not pursue penalties against Starbucks, workers plan to file a class-action lawsuit in California [2]. Group 2: Dress Code Changes - Starbucks implemented a new dress code on May 12, requiring all North American workers to wear solid black shirts under green aprons, with specific guidelines for bottoms and shoes [3][4][5]. - The new dress code prohibits face tattoos, multiple facial piercings, tongue piercings, and "theatrical makeup" [7]. - The previous dress code allowed for more self-expression, including patterned shirts and a wider variety of colors [8]. Group 3: Employee Experiences - Employees have reported incurring personal expenses to comply with the new dress code, with one employee spending $60.09 on compliant shoes and an additional $86.95 on work clothes [11][12]. - Workers have expressed frustration over the expectation to redesign their wardrobes without compensation, highlighting financial strain [12]. Group 4: Legal Basis for Claims - The lawsuits allege that Starbucks' dress code violates state laws requiring reimbursement for expenses that primarily benefit the employer [13]. - Colorado law specifically prohibits employers from imposing expenses on workers without their written consent [13][14]. Group 5: Union Involvement - The Starbucks Workers Union, which has organized 640 of Starbucks' 10,000 company-owned US stores, has filed numerous unfair labor practice charges against the company, including one related to the dress code [15].

Group 1 - A former employee of Bojangles alleged violations of multiple laws protecting employee rights, including discrimination and retaliation due to pregnancy [3][4][9] - The employee claimed that her request for a disability accommodation related to her sickle cell anemia and pregnancy was denied, leading to her termination [9] - The lawsuit cites violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) [4][6][9] Group 2 - The PWFA, effective in 2023, mandates that employers provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant workers with known limiting conditions [6] - The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) emphasizes the importance of an interactive process between employers and employees to determine appropriate accommodations [5][6] - Employers are required to consider the preferences of the individual when providing accommodations, unless it poses an undue hardship [6]

Core Viewpoint - Costco's internal investigation policies are criticized for being overly broad and potentially infringing on employee rights, particularly regarding confidentiality agreements that employees must sign when raising complaints [1][7]. Group 1: Case Background - The case involves Jessica Georg, who filed a sexual harassment complaint against a co-worker in 2022 using Costco's "Open Door" policy [2]. - Georg was required to sign a confidentiality agreement that prohibited her from discussing the matter with coworkers, which raised concerns about the implications for employee rights [3][6]. Group 2: Legal Arguments - Costco's lawyer argued that confidentiality rules are designed to protect the integrity of investigations and encourage candid employee statements, especially in the retail industry [4]. - The lawyer emphasized that the rules are not meant to deter discussions about wages, working conditions, or union formation [5]. Group 3: NLRB Findings - The NLRB found that the individual Georg complained about had multiple prior complaints against him, and Georg expressed concerns that sharing information could jeopardize her job [6]. - NLRB attorneys suggested that a more tailored confidentiality agreement could protect sensitive information while ensuring workers' rights against harassment [7]. Group 4: Judge's Decision - Judge Gollin proposed that Costco post a notice in the warehouse where the violation occurred, as the NLRB did not conclusively prove that similar confidentiality forms were used across all US locations [8]. - The case will proceed to the NLRB's board, with exceptions to the decision due by June 2 [8].