Feds say Starbucks illegally closed 6 L.A. area stores

Updated: Dec 14, 2023 / 06:53 PM CST

Six Los Angeles County Starbucks stores may soon reopen after the National Labor Relations Board said the coffee franchise closed about two dozen locations to halt union momentum.

As reported in the New York Times, a regional NLRB office determined that 23 U.S. stores were closed “because its employees engaged in union activities or to discourage employees from doing so.” At least seven of those stores had unionized, the Times added, though the company said none of the Los Angeles locations were unionized.

The local stores affected are:

8595 Santa Monica Blvd., West Hollywood (the “Santa Monica & Westmount” store)
5453 Hollywood Blvd. (the “Hollywood & Western” store)
120 S Los Angeles St. (the “1st & Los Angeles (Doubletree)” store)
6290 Hollywood Blvd. (the “Hollywood & Vine” store)
1601 Ocean Front Walk, Santa Monica (the “Ocean Front Walk & Moss” store)
232 E. 2nd St. (the “2nd & San Pedro” store)

In response, Mari Cosgrove, a Seattle Starbucks partner and member of Starbucks Workers United, issued a statement criticizing the company.

“This complaint is the latest confirmation of Starbucks’ determination to illegally oppose workers’ organizing,” Cosgrove said. “It adds to the litany of complaints detailed in the company’s own report released this morning. If Starbucks is sincere in its overtures in recent days to forge a different relationship with its partners, this is exactly the kind of illegal behavior it needs to stop.”

Executive Vice President and President of Starbucks North America Sara Trilling disagreed with that assessment and provided a statement to KTLA.

According to the company, opening new stores and closing some locations is a regular part of their business model.

“In support of our Reinvention Plan, and as part of our ongoing efforts to transform our store portfolio, we continue to open, close and evolve our stores as we assess, reposition and strengthen our store portfolio,” said Trilling.

According to the Times, the issue will go before an administrative judge next summer unless Starbucks settles before then.