Starbucks hours dispute settles in Everett labor lawsuit

Starbucks has settled an Everett labor lawsuit that put one of the company’s most basic workplace promises under a microscope: who gets offered hours first. The case, brought by former part-time barista Tom Bosserman, centered on whether Starbucks gave additional shifts to existing workers before bringing in new hires, a question that matters in a coffee chain where a few missed hours can mean less rent money, lost benefits eligibility, or a schedule that never feels stable.

Bosserman filed his complaint in Snohomish County Superior Court on Sept. 22, 2025, after spending 18 years working for Starbucks at various Everett locations before his termination on Aug. 19, 2025. The settlement was reached on May 12, less than nine months after the case was filed. The lawsuit sought class-action status for other non-managerial workers in Everett and alleged Starbucks failed to offer additional hours to part-time employees before hiring new workers.

The legal hook was Everett’s Fair Labor Standards ordinance, part of the voter-approved Everett Deserves A Raise initiative. The city’s new minimum wage and labor rules took effect on July 1, 2025, and the ordinance requires covered employers to offer additional hours to qualified part-time employees before hiring new employees or subcontractors to fill those hours. Everett’s code says the point is to protect workers by making sure existing staff get a real chance at the work before a company expands the roster. The law applies to employers with 15 or more employees worldwide, and reporting on the case said Starbucks has six company-owned locations in Everett.

For Starbucks workers watching their schedules, the case offers a clear set of warning signs. If a store is adding new hires or using subcontractors while part-time partners are still asking for more hours, that can raise questions under the Everett rule. So can a pattern where shifts are posted, but existing workers are not given a meaningful chance to pick them up before outside staffing fills the gap. The complaint also reportedly sought lost wages, liquidated damages up to twice the unpaid wages, attorney fees, and a compliance plan, which shows how quickly a scheduling dispute can become a legal fight over payroll and staffing practices.

The city of Everett said alleged violations would be for courts to determine case by case, and the settlement did not produce a public ruling on the merits. That leaves the broader question unresolved, but it keeps pressure on Starbucks as workers continue to weigh the company’s promises about staffing against the hours they actually see on the schedule.