Members of the Missouri House Budget Committee on Wednesday made Attorney General Andrew Bailey defend his
request for millions in additional funding and his decision to sue Starbucks for allegations it discriminated against white applicants in hiring and promotions.
Republican members of the committee led the questioning of Bailey’s request for new funds, asking why he needed more money when his office hasn’t spent all it was given in past years.
ALSO READ: 'Making America less safe': Democrats warn of disaster as Trump purges the CIA
“You’re asking for more personal service (funding), but you’re leaving $2 million on the bottom line,” said state Rep. John Voss, a Republican from Cape Girardeau. “So why do you say that they’re not funded when I think there’s sufficient room for you to use that? I honestly think the issue isn’t money. It’s something else preventing you from being able to hire attorneys.”
Need to get in touch?
Have a news tip?
Democrats took the lead on the Starbucks case, filed Tuesday in federal court.
“I’m just curious if white-served coffee tastes a little bit better because if it does I’m happy to have some,” said state Rep. Raychel Proudie, a Democrat from Ferguson.
Bailey defended the budget request by saying his office was seeking to hire experienced attorneys to handle more complex cases and to mentor lawyers hired for their first job after law school.
The Starbucks case, Bailey said, was filed because he believes the company’s diversity, equity and inclusion programs and executive incentives are illegal.
“The statute in the (Missouri Human Rights Act) says that if it appears to the attorney general that any of these rights are being either violated or even that anyone is suppressing those rights, that the attorney general then, under the statute, has the authority to take legal action,” Bailey said.
Lawmakers appropriated $44.7 million for Bailey’s office in the current fiscal year and he is asking for $47.4 million for the year beginning July 1. State
budget office documents show Bailey spent only $28.2 million of $43 million set aside for his office in fiscal 2024, leaving the remainder, including $1.7 million in general revenue, unspent.
Over the past eight years, the attorney general’s office has had a growing vacancy problem, with more than 32% of authorized personnel slots unused in fiscal 2024. In fiscal 2017, about 22% of the authorized personnel slots, designated as full time equivalents or FTEs in state budget documents, were unused.
Part of the personnel issue for his office, Bailey said, is expanded legal teams at individual state agencies and the lure of private practice once attorneys have gained experience.
The increased funding, he said, will help cut turnover by allowing him to recruit more experienced attorneys to work with the newly graduated lawyers. He is not, he said, asking for additional personnel slots.
“I noticed when I took over, to put it in military terms, I had a lot of privates and a lot of lieutenants, but not a lot of sergeants,” Bailey said.
Voss, however, wasn’t convinced that the extra money is needed.
“I think you have the money,” Voss said. “I just don’t think that’s the real problem.”
In the Starbucks lawsuit, filed in the U.S. Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Bailey alleges that hiring and promotion decisions, as well as executive bonuses, were tied to a quota system for women and minority recruitment.
In 2020, the lawsuit states, 69% of Starbucks’ employees in the United States were women and 47% were Black or other minorities. In September, the filing states, 70.9% of Starbucks employees were women and 52.2% were Black or other minorities.
“In other words, since 2020, Starbuck’s workface (sic) has become more female and less white,” the filing states.
“As Attorney General, I have a responsbility (sic) to protect Missourians from a company that actively engages in systemic race and sex discrimination,” Bailey said.
As a result, Bailey wrote in the lawsuit, “Missouri consumers pay higher prices and wait longer for goods and services that could be provided for less had Starbucks employed the most qualified workers, regardless of their race, color, sex, or national origin.”
Starbucks said it does not discriminate in a statement in response to the lawsuit.
“We disagree with the attorney general and these allegations are inaccurate,” the company stated. “We are deeply committed to creating opportunity for every single one of our partners (employees). Our programs and benefits are open to everyone and lawful. Our hiring practices are inclusive, fair and competitive and designed to ensure the strongest candidate for every job every time.”
In the hearing Tuesday, state Rep. Betsy Fogle, a Democrat from Springfield, said she sees nothing wrong in Starbucks increasing its employment of women and minorities.
“There are a lot of us in this room that celebrate that fact,” Fogle said. “We want women in the workforce. We want individuals and groups who have historically been out of the workforce to be full participants.”
In reply, Bailey said he is trying to promote fair hiring for all applicants.
“It is my opinion that everyone should have equal access to job opportunities, and the decisions should be made in accordance with the statutes and promotion of merit,” he said.
State Rep. Aaron Crossley, a Democrat from Independence, asked Bailey about other lawsuits against private companies, requesting a list of those actions.
“And then also, could we please get a breakdown of your office’s staff and by gender and by race,” he said, “just make sure that we’re practicing what we preach.”
Missouri Independent is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Missouri Independent maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jason Hancock for questions: info@missouriindependent.com.
