Should Starbucks Have Called the Police?

Should Starbucks Have Called the Police?

In April of 2008, Starbucks was in the news when a manager in a downtown Philadelphia Starbucks called the police to arrest two young black men who were asking to use the bathroom without purchasing anything from the store. There is no question that the manager had a legal right to do so –– the more interesting ethical questions focused on whether the company policy about bathroom use was “right,” and whether it was “right” to call the police to arrest the two men for “trespass.” Judging from the media coverage, people in the U.S. were divided on the ethical aspects and, unfortunately, the media was not consistently clear about the facts of the situation. This account is offered not to convince or persuade, but to lay out the facts and ask whether calling the police was legal, yet wrong.

The Situation

On the afternoon of April 12, 2018, two 23-year-old black men, Rashon Nelson and Donte Robinson, entered the Starbucks located at 1801 Spruce Street in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. They did not make any purchases, but asked to use the bathroom. The manager, a woman named Holly who had managed that store location for about a year, told them the bathrooms are for paying customers. The two men cursed her, whereupon she asked them to leave.

Rashon and Donte refused to leave, so at 4:37 p.m., Holly called the police. Her phone call to the police lasted about 20 seconds and went like this: “Hi, I have two gentlemen in my café that are refusing to make a purchase or leave. Um, I’m at the Starbucks at 18^th and Spruce.” The dispatcher told her they would have an officer there as soon as possible, Holly thanked dispatch, and that was the end of the complaint phone call.

The dispatcher did not write down the number of men mentioned by the store manager, so three minutes later, when a male dispatcher radioed out to area police cars, he described the incident as a “group of males refusing to leave.” Four minutes after that, a male dispatcher described the incident as “…a disturbance at the Starbucks. A group of males is causing a disturbance.”

The police arrived and were told by two Starbucks employees that the two men had refused to leave when asked by employees of the café. Three police officers approached Rashon and Donte and asked them three times to leave. Rashon and Donte told the police they didn’t have to leave, but the officers pointed out that it was legal for the café to ask them to leave. Rashon and Donte refused, and told the officers, among other things, “Cops don’t know the law.”

At one point during this exchange, another customer approached the officers and told them the men were allowed to be there. The police told the man, “That’s the problem, they’re not. They were asked to leave.”

After several refusals, the officers arrested Rashon and Donte for defiant trespass.

The Charge

Defiant Trespass is a 3^rd degree misdemeanor found in § 3503 (b)(1)(i). Language as follows:

3503. Criminal trespass.

(b) Defiant trespasser.

(1) A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place as to which notice against trespass is given by:

(i) actual communication to the actor;

These charges were never filed by Starbucks and both Donte and Rashon were released from jail the next morning.

Starbucks’ Policy on Loitering/Bathroom Use

Starbucks’ corporate policy on loitering and bathroom use at the time of these arrests was a general policy—no loitering, no bathrooms for non-paying clients—with guidance for each branch that varied by location. As Jamie Riley, one of Starbucks’ spokespeople said, “In this particular store, the guidelines were that partners must ask non-paying customers to leave the store, and the police were to be called if they refused.”

Reddit, a fascinating place for social discussions, has several conversation strings regarding Starbucks’ loitering policy that make it clear each local branch handles these types of issues as they choose. This corroborates the emphasis in Riley’s statement, “In this particular store, the guidelines were…”

Some examples of how different locations have handled this policy from that Reddit string are below:

mashmcclue32

18 points · 2 months ago

I work at a downtown, big-city store, very much like Philadelphia, and I can tell you that the instruction we have been given from Starbucks Security has been not to allow loitering of any kind, for any person. We have to call the police every day for incidents that go way past loitering.

Maslac97

8 points · 2 months ago

Same my downtown cafe store was insane full of crazy people. Had to deal with drug addicts who would shoot up in our bathrooms. Dealing with mentally insane homeless people who come and threaten you with knives and throw hot coffee at you. We have a code for the bathroom that is only available for customers. The lobby is also only for customers. These downtown stores have strict rules and we have to follow them to insure the safety of paying guests.

DViddy

Store Manager

11 points · 2 months ago

Corporate policy on the HUB has a script to follow in order to ask a loiterer to leave. We definitely have a “no loitering and here’s how to handle it” policy. If you ask someone to buy something or leave, and they say “we’re waiting on a friend, then we are going to order” that’s a different story. But to say we aren’t allowed or supposed to ask loiterers to leave is incorrect.

banterdisaster

1 point · 2 months ago

At my store you can stay in the lobby all day I don’t care. You just can’t sleep or bother other customers. Even being that relaxed I have still had to call the police a few times. Like when a homeless guy started kicking windows and screaming in customer’s faces. You wanna chill all day though? Go ahead but don’t give us grief about having to leave when we close.

-ScreamingBarista-

Barista

1 point · 2 months ago

My store is next to a freeway overpass and we get a lot of homeless people in the cafe. We never disturb them unless they are disruptive which I think makes sense.

slarky13

2 points · 2 months ago

We have one of the busiest stores in the district……..and one with the least seating space. Despite this, we have NEVER EVER kicked someone out for taking up seating without paying, unless they were being disruptive or stealing. It’s absolutely against Starbucks values and I really truly hope your store manager is re-educated about this because he and you are both in the wrong.

mashmcclue32

7 points · 2 months ago

This is completely an unfair remark.

Part of the Safe and Welcoming Signage that corporate has sent out, to be posted on or near the entrance, explicitly prohibits loitering. Minimizing loitering reduces safety and security incidents across the board.

My store, too, has been given that same strict policy, not from our SM or DM, but our regional director. This policy issue goes way above store-level partners, and it’s unfair to place the blame on them.

_________________________

Clearly the corporate policy has a wide range of ways it is applied across different café locations. Part of the chosen intensity of the policy against loitering is the fact that not all Starbucks locations have a locked bathroom where people have to ask to use it, and not all Starbucks locations post the corporately distributed no loitering signs.

Reactions

Many people were appalled by the arrest of these two men and the backlash against Starbucks was marked. There were picketers, sit-ins, social pressure, megaphones, and hashtags such as #enough #BLM #nomorestarbucks, #boycottstarbucks.

Police Commissioner Richard Ross initially made a public statement in which he defended the actions of his police officers. He said, “They did a service that they were called to do. And if you think about it logically, that if a business calls and they say that someone is here that I no longer wish to be in my business, (officers) now have a legal obligation to carry out their duties. And they did just that.”

Later he walked that statement back a bit and said, “While it is no excuse, my lack of awareness of the Starbucks business model played a role in my messaging, while this is apparently a well-known fact with Starbucks customers, not everyone is aware that people spend long hours in Starbucks and aren’t necessarily expected to make a purchase. I have had multiple discussions over the last few days and it is a — I shouldn’t say a well-known fact, but a widespread belief, that everyone knows that about Starbucks. I am here to tell you that I did not and it is also reasonable to believe the officers didn’t know it either. I can appreciate, in light of the Starbucks policy and how well known it is to many, why these two men were appalled when they were asked to leave,” he said. “For this reason, I apologize to them.”

Commissioner Ross promised to review their policies on how to handle calls like the one in this case.

Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson released a statement calling the arrests a “disheartening incident” that led to a “reprehensible outcome.” He apologized to the two men who were arrested, reaffirmed that Starbucks is firmly against discrimination or racial profiling. He stated that “creating an environment that is both safe and welcoming for everyone is paramount in every store.” And stated that, “regretfully, our policies and training led to a bad outcome.”

Starbucks has since settled with Rashon and Donte for an undisclosed amount of money, as well as fully paid college tuition, and an invitation for them to be part on ongoing talks on how to resolve racial bias. Starbucks has also changed their bathroom and loitering policy dramatically, now holding a public position that anyone can use their bathroom without purchase.

Rashon and Donte settled with the City of Philadelphia for the sum of $200,002. One dollar to each of them personally, and $200,000 to be placed in a one year grant program for high school student aspiring to become entrepreneurs.

The manager who called the police no longer works for Starbucks in what Starbucks announced was a mutual decision.

Research:

Audio clips of 911 call and dispatch communication: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2018/04/17/hear-911-call-led-starbucks-arrests-two-african-americans/526255002/

Reddit comments from Starbucks employees and managers on how their branch handles loitering: https://www.reddit.com/r/starbucks/comments/8cjf3u/how_do_you_handle_loitering/#bottom-comments

NY Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/15/us/starbucks-philadelphia-black-men-arrest.html

Starbucks Spokesperson said: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/15/us/starbucks-philadelphia-black-men-arrest.html

https://www.livetradingnews.com/starbucks-nasdaqsbux-guidance-is-clear-no-loitering-83383.html

https://beta.phila.gov/2018-04-14-mayors-statement-on-incident-at-starbucks-in-center-city/

Interview with manager: https://apple.news/AYlFb6RSpTIiXQFxA6xn6GA

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5623889/Starbucks-manager-Holly-called-cops-black-customers-claims-loitering-ongoing-problem.html

http://time.com/5241671/starbucks-philadelphia-bathroom-rights/

https://www.themaven.net/bluelivesmatter/news/video-police-reveal-men-arrested-for-being-black-at-starbucks-is-a-lie-Q9m0AUa4BEeKjvEJJpuyMg/?full=1