Starbucks is under fire in Massachusetts, facing a putative class action lawsuit that accuses the coffee giant of ignoring a state law requiring employers to disclose that lie detector tests cannot be used in hiring decisions.

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in state court by Nicholas Paulo, a resident of Lynn, Massachusetts, alleges that Starbucks failed to provide the legally mandated notice on its job applications. Paulo, who applied for a managerial role at a Swampscott Starbucks, claims that neither he nor other job seekers received the necessary warning about polygraph testing prohibitions under state law.

Paulo now seeks to represent an estimated thousands of Massachusetts job applicants in a class action that could leave Starbucks on the hook for significant damages.

1985 Law At Center Of The Legal Battle

The lawsuit hinges on a 1985 Massachusetts law requiring that all employment applications explicitly inform job seekers that it is illegal for an employer to require or administer a lie detector test as a condition of employment.

Despite this long-standing mandate, the complaint claims that Starbucks has systematically flouted the law, failing to provide applicants with this crucial information.

If the allegations hold up in court, the company could be forced to pay a minimum of $500 per violation, along with prejudgment interest, attorney fees, and a court order demanding compliance with the law.

A Growing Trend In Employment Law Battles

Paulo’s legal team—Birnbaum & Godkin LLP and Bursor & Fisher PA—are no strangers to this type of litigation. The firms have previously pursued similar cases against Walgreens, CVS, Staples, and Raytheon Technologies Corp.

Notably, CVS settled a similar lawsuit in July, a move that suggests major employers may struggle with compliance in Massachusetts’ strict hiring laws.

What’s Next For Starbucks?

As the legal battle unfolds, Starbucks now finds itself in the crosshairs of an employment law showdown. If the class action is certified, the financial repercussions could be substantial, potentially impacting thousands of applicants and forcing the coffee chain to revise its hiring practices statewide.

For now, representatives for both parties have remained silent, with Starbucks yet to respond to the allegations of disregarding state hiring regulations.

Paulo is represented by David S. Godkin and James E. Kruzer of Birnbaum & Godkin LLP, along with Joshua D. Arisohn, Matthew A. Girardi, and Julian C. Diamond of Bursor & Fisher PA.

Counsel information for Starbucks was not immediately available.