Starbucks and the union representing its workers, Workers United, are embroiled in a legal battle following a social media post related to the Israel-Hamas war. The coffee giant has filed a lawsuit against the union in federal court in Iowa, accusing Workers United of trademark infringement and demanding that they cease using the name "Starbucks Workers United" as well as a circular green logo resembling Starbucks' trademark.

Starbucks argues that Workers United's pro-Palestinian social media post, which was published on X (formerly known as Twitter) during the Israel-Hamas conflict, angered numerous customers and harmed the company's reputation. The post, which stated "Solidarity with Palestine!", appeared two days after Hamas militants carried out attacks in southern Israel. Starbucks alleges that the tweet, despite being removed after approximately 40 minutes, caused significant damage by provoking a negative response from customers, leading to threats and acts of vandalism against Starbucks stores.

In response to Starbucks' lawsuit, Workers United has filed its own legal claim in a federal court in Pennsylvania. The union seeks a ruling affirming its right to use the Starbucks name and a similar logo. Additionally, Workers United accuses Starbucks of defaming the union by implying that it supports terrorism and violence. The union asserts that the social media post was made without the authorization of union leaders and that Starbucks is attempting to exploit the conflict in the Middle East to undermine their unionization efforts.

Starbucks' legal action is part of the company's ongoing resistance to unionization. While Workers United has been operating under that name since August 2021, it gained attention after successfully unionizing its first Starbucks store in Buffalo, New York. Since then, at least 366 Starbucks locations in the United States have voted to unionize. This movement has sparked a wave of labor protests across various industries, including Amazon workers, Hollywood writers and actors, and auto workers.

Starbucks claims to have received over 1,000 complaints about the union's social media post. The company asserts that its workers have faced hostile customers and threatening phone calls as a result. Instances of vandalism, such as the spray-painting of Stars of David and a swastika on a Starbucks store window in Rhode Island, have further escalated tensions. Some lawmakers, including Republican Senator Rick Scott of Florida, have called for boycotts of Starbucks, with one Florida state representative, Randy Fine, tweeting that supporting the coffee chain is equivalent to supporting the killing of Jews.

In its official statements regarding the Israel-Hamas conflict, Starbucks has expressed sympathy for innocent victims on both sides and condemned acts of hate, terrorism, and violence. Starbucks' Executive Vice President, Sara Kelly, wrote in a letter to employees that the company unequivocally denounces such actions. On the other hand, Workers United has not issued a separate statement regarding the incident, but its parent organization, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), stated that it believes in the safety, freedom, and opportunity for both Israelis and Palestinians.

The legal dispute between Starbucks and Workers United adds to the contentious labor negotiations between the two parties. The process of reaching a labor agreement at Starbucks' unionized stores has been fraught with challenges, including multiple strikes organized by workers. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has identified 38 instances of unfair labor practices by Starbucks, as determined by federal district and administrative judges. These practices include delaying negotiations and withholding benefits from unionized workers.

As the legal battle unfolds, both Starbucks and Workers United are standing firm in their positions. Starbucks seeks to protect its brand and reputation, claiming significant damage caused by the union's social media post. In contrast, Workers United maintains its right to use the Starbucks name and logo while accusing the company of attempting to undermine their unionization efforts. The outcome of this legal dispute will undoubtedly have broader implications for the relationship between employers and unions across various industries.