Search results
Oct 27, 2020 · On October 27, 2020, Graham, Michelle et al. filed a General Torts - (Torts) case against Starbucks Corporation, A Washington Corporation in the jurisdiction of San Joaquin County, CA. This case was filed in San Joaquin County Superior Courts, with Abdallah, George J. presiding.
Oct 27, 2020 · On 10/27/2020 Michelle Graham filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury court case against Starbucks Corporation, a Washington Corporation in San Joaquin County Superior Courts. Court records for this case are available from Stockton Courthouse.
Review the Motion to Quash in Michelle Graham et al. vs Starbucks Corporation, a Washington Corporation and the significance of this document for this case on Trellis.Law
Jun 13, 2024 · The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Starbucks in a case that could make it harder for a federal agency to enforce labor laws in disputes that can arise during organizing campaigns.
Apr 23, 2024 · On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments — not about whether Starbucks illegally interfered with the union drive, but about whether a lower court erred in ordering Starbucks to reinstate...
- Andrea Hsu
Apr 24, 2024 · On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments — not about whether Starbucks illegally interfered with the union drive, but about whether a lower court erred in ordering Starbucks to reinstate Escobar and his co-workers while their firings were being investigated.
People also ask
What is the Starbucks case at the Supreme Court about?
Could a Supreme Court case impact Starbucks unionization?
Does Starbucks want the Supreme Court to impose a standard?
Did Starbucks discriminate against Union supporters?
The union alleged that Starbucks unlawfully interfered with the employees’ right to unionize and discriminated against union supporters, in violation of 29 U. S. C. §§158(a)(1) and (3). After investigating the allegations, the Board issued a complaint against Starbucks.
