Pour one out for Missouri prosecutors! A controversial lawsuit filed against Starbucks for not hiring sufficient numbers of white, male baristas has been dismissed by a federal judge. The case, initiated by former Missouri Attorney General Andy Bailey, accused the coffee giant of discriminatory hiring practices that allegedly led to higher prices and longer wait times for consumers. The lawsuit suggested that these hiring policies prevented the employment of the most qualified candidates based solely on their race and gender.

The case stemmed from Starbucks' 2021 Global Environmental & Social Impact Report, which highlighted the company's goals for increasing diversity among its workforce, including management and executive roles. Bailey's complaint argued that these policies were costly for Missourians and accused Starbucks of systemic discrimination against white men and other protected groups.

However, the lawsuit did not point to any specific instances where Missouri residents were directly harmed by these policies. No evidence was provided that any individual was denied a job, promotion, or other employment benefits at Starbucks due to their race or gender. The legal effort appeared more a strategic move by Bailey to gain political attention, which indeed materialized briefly as he caught the eye of former President Donald Trump, leading to a short stint as deputy director of the FBI.

Meanwhile, Bailey's successor, Catherine Hanaway, faced the challenging task of steering the lawsuit through the courts. Senior Judge John Ross criticized the case for its reliance on broken links and outdated documents, ultimately dismissing it for lacking a "plausible theory of standing or legal claim for relief." He highlighted the absence of any concrete evidence linking Starbucks' hiring practices to the alleged increase in prices or decrease in service quality.

In his ruling, Judge Ross also noted that the Missouri Attorney General's Office lacked the statutory authority to bring claims under certain federal and state discrimination laws, further dooming the case. This result turned the lawsuit into little more than a costly and futile exercise, using significant court resources without benefiting Missouri residents.

In the end, the lawsuit served as a stark example of how legal battles are sometimes wielded as political tools, rather than means of genuine advocacy for public interest. As the froth settles, what remains is a cautionary tale about the complexities and consequences of intertwining legal actions with political ambitions.