Published Thursday, June 18, 2026 in The Everett Herald
Former Starbucks Barista Settles Lawsuit Over Everett Labor Law
By Jenna Millikan, Herald Writer
A former Starbucks barista settled a lawsuit May 12 just under nine months after filing the complaint in Snohomish County Superior Court alleging the coffee company violated Everett’s labor law by refusing to give him more hours before hiring new workers.
Starbucks agreed to pay Tom Bosserman, the Everett barista who filed the class action complaint on Sept. 22, “more than double what the median Starbucks barista makes in a single year,” according to a Starbucks Workers United statement.
The statement did not provide specifics.
"Union baristas continue to hold Starbucks accountable and win – including this significant settlement," the statement said. "Across Washington and the nation, baristas are struggling to get the hours they need to pay their rent and qualify for health insurance."
Starbucks didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
Bosserman had worked for Starbucks for approximately 18 years when the company terminated his employment in August 2025, according to court documents. Bosserman reportedly mastered all of the duties of the position, and Starbucks used him as a barista trainer.
The lawsuit stems from Everett’s Fair Labor Standards code, which was codified Dec. 5, 2024. The city’s municipal code includes a provision requiring employers to offer additional hours of work to qualified part-time employees before hiring new employees to fill those hours.
The code took effect July 1, 2025. It requires large companies — those with over 500 employees — to pay minimum-wage workers $20.24 per hour. Companies employing between 15 and 500 workers must pay a minimum wage of $18.24 per hour. Companies with fewer than 15 employees or an annual gross revenue of less than $2 million pay the state minimum wage.
The complaint claimed that Starbucks did "not use a reasonable, transparent and nondiscriminatory process to distribute the hours of work among existing employees before hiring additional employees or subcontractors."
In September, Bosserman told The Daily Herald that he has "seen firsthand how Starbucks talks about valuing its partners while ignoring our rights."
"My coworkers and I should have been offered the hours we needed before new people were hired over us — as is required in Everett," he said via email in September. "Instead, Starbucks broke the law and broke our trust. I'm standing up not just for myself, but for every barista in Everett who deserves fair treatment and a fair chance to support themselves and their families."
Part-time employees eligible for the class action suit would have accepted additional hours if they had been offered them, court documents said. By not being scheduled for those hours, they reportedly lost out on wages and tips.
Starbucks employees begin receiving benefits, including health insurance, starting at 20 hours a week. The lawsuit sought the penalties allowed under Everett law — twice the wages that would have been earned, alongside compensatory damages.
"That’s why union baristas continue to organize and demand a better future at Starbucks, which begins with a fair union contract," Starbucks Workers United said in the statement.