Starbucks Adopts “Restrooms for Paying Customers Only” Policy. What Does the Law Say?

We’ve all been there, noticing that “Restrooms for Customers Only” sign on the door of some restaurant the moment we need to use the bathroom the most. Some establishments even resort to requiring codes to enter the restroom. While these tactics may have deterred many from using the facilities, others have resorted to buying an unwanted coffee for the convenience.
The “pay to pee” practice may not be foreign to Europeans who expect to pay for public restrooms, but in America it still feels odd, even rude. Is it legal for restaurant owners to deny us fulfillment of such a basic human need?
The short answer is: probably. You won’t have to pay directly to use the restroom at Starbucks, but you almost certainly will have to make a purchase. This requirement applies to using their premises as well. Interestingly, this isn't the first time Starbucks has been in the news for its treatment of loiterers and folks who wander in with no intention of buying coffee.
Isn't a Coffee Shop Made for Loitering?
Starbucks' shifting policies on what to do with the non-paying public has been an ongoing legal nightmare for the chain.
In 2018, two Black men, Rashon Nelson and Donte Robinson, were arrested in a Philadelphia Starbucks after they remained seated without ordering. The manager called the police, reporting they refused to either buy something or leave.
The incident didn't lead to significant legal consequences for the men, who were released without charges. Eventually, a lawsuit they filed against Starbucks and the City of Philadelphia settled. Philadelphia agreed to work with the two men on a $200,000 entrepreneurship grant program and gave each a symbolic $1.
Starbucks, along with its then-CEO Howard Schultz, settled with the two men for an undisclosed sum and issued a public apology. They also introduced racial bias training and shifted to an "open-door" policy, citing a commitment to inclusivity.
The drama continued with the dismissal of a regional manager, Shannon Phillips, shortly after objecting to the termination of another white manager following the turmoil. She claimed the company used her termination in an “effort to convince the community that they had properly responded to the incident” when she wasn’t even in charge of the store where the incident occurred.
As a result, she was awarded $600,000 in compensatory damages and $25 million in punitive damages after a jury determined her termination was discriminatory.
Now, seven years later, Starbucks is reversing the open-door policy. This time, they argue that the implementation of a Coffeehouse Code of Conduct is necessary to set expectations and enhance the experience for everyone.
Can They Legally Refuse To Let Me Use The Restroom?
At a federal level, yes. Restaurants and shops are considered private property. As such, the owners retain the authority to determine who can enter the premises. However, local laws may impose specific regulations that differ from this general rule.
For example, a law in California requires that businesses open to the general public provide restroom access to individuals with certain medical conditions, even if the restrooms are typically designated for employee use only.
The medical conditions include: Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, other inflammatory bowel disease, irritable bowel syndrome, or another medical condition that requires immediate access to a toilet facility. Business owners are permitted to request proof of such medical conditions.
Around 20 states have similar laws. Despite these requirements, there are exceptions. In Tennessee, for instance, the business owner can refuse to allow someone to use the restroom if it would pose a risk to the customer or the business.
Discrimination Not Allowed
Similar rules apply to asking someone to leave the premises. Importantly, however, if a person believes that they are being excluded due to their race, origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or other protected class, they may have grounds for a discrimination lawsuit against the business owner. Absent discrimination, however, businesses have the right to ask someone to vacate the premises if they consider a person to be disrupting business, and “disruption” can be a pretty subjective concept.
In short, Starbucks is legally entitled to request that customers make a purchase or leave their stores, absent proof of a medical condition (in some states). The ethical considerations of denying restroom access to a person who “really has to go” is a discussion we'll have to hold in for now.
Related Resources
- Do You Have to Provide Customers With a Bathroom? (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
- Transgender People and Bathroom Access Laws (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
- Starbucks Wins Hot Tea Case, Not in Hot Water (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)