Was former Starbucks worker misgendered? It’s part of Fresno discrimination case
A transgender woman took her employee discrimination and harassment lawsuit against a Fresno Starbucks to the 5th District Court of Appeal on Wednesday.
Maddie Wade sued Starbucks in 2018 alleging the manager at the northwest Fresno store at 6701 N. Milburn Ave. began to treat her negatively after she told him she was starting the process of transitioning from male to female.
Wade, a Starbucks employee for eight years, argued in her lawsuit that the manager reduced her work hours, treated her differently and repeatedly called her by her male name.
A Fresno County Superior Court judge ruled in favor of the company in 2019, saying there was not enough evidence Wade was harassed or discriminated against.
On Wednesday, Wade’s attorney Lindsay Nako appeared before a Fresno-based panel of three associate justices along with Starbucks’ attorney Tracey Kennedy.
Nako, who is director of litigation for the Impact Fund in Berkeley, argued that Wade was the victim of a hostile work environment created by her manager.
Nako said that as soon as Wade told the manager she was planning to transition to a woman, everything changed. At one time, the manager told Wade he wanted to promote her to be an assistant manager, but it never happened. He also changed her shift from mornings that are typically busy to the slower afternoon shift.
He also is alleged to have continually misgendered her, despite clear anti-harassment guidelines from Starbucks corporate about transitioning employees.
“He chose to ignore the guidelines and he made it clear she was no longer a valued member of the team,” Nako said.
Wade eventually transferred from the Fresno store and eventually quit out of frustration that nothing was done about her claims of discrimination.
Starbucks’ rebuttal
The Starbucks attorney, Kennedy, said the lower court’s ruling was the right one. She said Wade’s case lacks sufficient evidence to meet the criteria of harassment and discrimination.
She said there was no evidence that the manager offered to promote Wade to assistant manager or that his treatment of her had changed.
Kennedy also downplayed the allegation of misgendering. She said that during one of Wade’s depositions, she said that while she wanted to be called Maddie, if someone forgot it wasn’t a big deal.
Kennedy alleges Wade even continued to wear the name tag with her male name.
“There is no evidence that (the manager) intentionally and consistently referred to her as Matt,” she said.
Wade’s case has captured the attention of several legal and civil rights organizations that have helped with her appeal.
The Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund has filed an amicus brief along with 11 other parties including the ACLU, Equality California and the National Center for Lesbian Rights.
“Transgender people in California and nationwide face significant adverse treatment in the workplace, including the misuse of their names and pronouns. Being subjected to such adverse treatment is stigmatizing and harmful,” according to an amicus curiae brief filed by the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund and others. “Shining a constant spotlight on an employee’s transgender identity calls attention to a characteristic that is irrelevant to workplace performance. It sends a clear message both to the worker and to others that a transgender employee is not a valued, equal, or respected member of the workforce.”
Administrative presiding Justice Brad R. Hill said the justices will rule on the appeal in the coming months.
This story was originally published December 16, 2021 at 5:00 AM.
