Two employees defended themselves and their coworkers against armed robbers. Their employer thanked them by firing them. Then, when the workers went to court, that same employer tried to bury the case in a mandatory arbitration clause — a private proceeding designed to keep corporate wrongdoing away from judges and juries.

On March 3, 2026, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, dismissed Starbucks Corporation's entire appeal. All four points. Gone.

The case now returns to the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis with every claim intact.

The Case — What Happened at 212 South Grand

On December 17, 2023, two Starbucks employees — Michael Harris and Devin Jones-Ransom — were working at the company's location at 212 South Grand Boulevard in St. Louis when two armed men attempted to rob the store. Rather than standing by, the employees fought back. They subdued one gunman. Police apprehended the other.

They did everything most people would consider heroic.

In January 2024, Starbucks terminated both of them for their conduct during the robbery.

Harris and Jones-Ransom filed suit. Their claims covered wrongful termination, hostile work environment, retaliation, and three counts of negligence — two against Starbucks and one against Union Square Enterprises, the building owner. They also brought assault and battery claims against the individuals who attacked them.

Starbucks responded by filing a motion to do two things: force the case into private arbitration, and use Missouri's workers' compensation exclusivity provision to knock out the negligence claims entirely.

The circuit court said no to both. Starbucks appealed. On March 3, 2026, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. Harris et al. v. Starbucks Corporation, ED113748 (Mo. App. E.D. 2026).

The Arbitration Trap — And Why It Failed

Mandatory arbitration agreements have become one of the most powerful tools corporations use to shield themselves from accountability. When employees are forced to sign them — often buried in onboarding paperwork — they waive their right to a jury trial. Disputes go to a private arbitrator, often selected from a pool that hears hundreds of cases from the same companies each year.

Starbucks claimed that Harris and Jones-Ransom had e-signed Mutual Arbitration Agreements (MAAs) during the onboarding process through a platform called Taleo. According to Starbucks, employees created passwords and entered their names, which constituted acceptance.

There was one significant problem: Harris and Jones-Ransom stated under oath that their store manager had completed the onboarding tasks for them. They never viewed the arbitration agreement. They never approved it. Confirmation emails with unsigned PDF copies were sent to them — unsigned being the operative word.

The circuit court held an evidentiary hearing on June 25, 2025, and found that Starbucks had presented "little to no evidence" that the MAA was ever offered, accepted, or supported by consideration. The agreement was unsigned. The motion to compel arbitration was denied.

On appeal, Starbucks argued that the circuit court's decision should be reviewed de novo — meaning the appellate court would reconsider everything from scratch, giving no deference to the trial judge who heard the testimony and weighed the evidence.

That was the wrong standard of review. And it cost Starbucks its entire appeal.

The Appellate Gaffe — When a Corporate Lawyer Doesn't Know Missouri Law

Here is where the procedural story becomes remarkable.

When an arbitration agreement's existence is genuinely disputed and the circuit court holds an evidentiary hearing to resolve that dispute, Missouri law treats the resulting decision like a court-tried case. The governing standard is Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) — a 50-year-old Missouri Supreme Court case that is as foundational to Missouri appellate practice as Miranda is to criminal procedure.

Under Murphy v. Carron, an appellate court will affirm the circuit court's decision unless it is not supported by substantial evidence, is against the weight of the evidence, or erroneously declares or applies the law. It is a deferential standard. It respects the fact that the trial judge, not the appellate judges, heard the witnesses and assessed their credibility.

Starbucks argued for de novo review throughout its brief. At oral argument, Starbucks's own attorney admitted he was not familiar with Murphy v. Carron.

Not familiar. With the central standard of appellate review in Missouri. In a case before the Missouri Court of Appeals.

Rule 84.04(e) of the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure requires that an appellate brief identify the applicable standard of review for each claim raised. Starbucks failed to do this correctly for Points I and II, which challenged the arbitration ruling. The Court of Appeals dismissed both points under Rule 84.04(e) for briefing defects.

The court also noted that even if it were inclined to construct a Murphy v. Carron argument on Starbucks's behalf — which courts have no obligation to do — the result would be the same: the circuit court heard the evidence, weighed it, and found that Starbucks had not met its burden to prove the existence, offer, acceptance, and consideration required for a valid arbitration agreement.

Workers' Compensation Exclusivity — Not a Get-Out-of-Court-Free Card

Missouri's workers' compensation system, codified at § 287.120 RSMo, is the exclusive remedy for work-related injuries in most situations. Employers often invoke this exclusivity provision aggressively, trying to knock out negligence claims at the earliest opportunity by arguing that the circuit court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Starbucks made this argument in the same combined motion — dismiss the negligence claims on exclusivity grounds, and compel arbitration on the rest.

The circuit court denied the motion to dismiss the negligence claims. Starbucks tried to appeal that denial alongside the arbitration order.

That approach has a fatal procedural flaw: the denial of a motion to dismiss is not a final, appealable judgment. Under Rhodes v. Mo. Highways & Transp. Comm'n, 718 S.W.3d 419 (Mo. banc 2025), the right to appeal is statutory, and Missouri's interlocutory appeal statute — § 435.440 — only permits interlocutory appeals from orders denying motions to compel arbitration. It does not extend to other interlocutory orders, even when they appear in the same filing.

The Court of Appeals declined to expand § 435.440's reach to cover the workers' compensation exclusivity dismissal. Points III and IV were dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

The negligence claims are alive. The case goes back to circuit court.

What This Means for Missouri Workers Facing Forced Arbitration

This decision carries practical importance for employees across Missouri.

The burden belongs to the employer. When an employer claims you signed an arbitration agreement, the employer must prove it. That means proving the agreement was offered, that you actually accepted it, and that it was supported by consideration — a legal term meaning something of value was exchanged. An employer cannot simply point to a Taleo onboarding screen and declare victory.

Manager-completed onboarding is a real challenge for employers. When a manager completes digital paperwork on an employee's behalf — a common practice in high-volume retail settings — the employer's ability to prove individual consent is weakened. Courts do not simply accept that someone else clicking through a form constitutes a worker's agreement to waive their constitutional right to a jury trial.

Electronic onboarding systems create evidence problems. Unsigned PDFs sent to an employee's email are not evidence of agreement. Timestamps in a Taleo database showing someone entered a name and password are not self-proving. When the facts are disputed and a court holds an evidentiary hearing, the trial judge decides — and under Murphy v. Carron, that decision will stand unless it is wrong on the law or clearly against the evidence.

Workers' compensation exclusivity is an affirmative defense, not a jurisdictional kill switch. Even if workers' compensation covers some aspects of a work-related injury, exclusivity is typically raised as an affirmative defense, not a basis to dismiss a case before discovery. Starbucks learned that a denial of a motion to dismiss is not even appealable at this stage.

Get the appeal right, or don't appeal at all. Appellate courts will dismiss briefs that fail to comply with Rule 84.04. Missouri's standard of review is not optional information. Corporations that assume their lawyers know basic Missouri appellate procedure — and skip the check — risk losing their appeal entirely, as happened here.

Read the Full Opinion

The full opinion in Harris et al. v. Starbucks Corporation, ED113748, was issued March 3, 2026, by the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two (Wright, P.J., Hess, J., and Lay, J., author).

Download the full appellate opinion (PDF)

Harris et al. v. Starbucks Corporation, No. ED113748, 2026 WL ___ (Mo. App. E.D. Mar. 3, 2026).

Frequently Asked Questions

Can my employer force me into arbitration in Missouri?

Possibly — but your employer must prove a valid arbitration agreement exists. Under Missouri law, an arbitration agreement requires offer, acceptance, and consideration. If the agreement was never properly presented to you, if someone else completed your onboarding paperwork, or if there is no signed or authenticated document, the employer may not be able to enforce the clause. Courts hold evidentiary hearings on these disputes, and the burden of proof falls on the employer.

What is the workers' compensation exclusivity provision?

Missouri's workers' compensation statute (§ 287.120 RSMo) generally makes workers' comp the exclusive remedy for work-related injuries — meaning employees usually cannot also sue their employer in circuit court for those same injuries. However, exclusivity is a legal defense with exceptions, not an absolute bar. Courts consider whether the injury falls within the statute's scope, and the defense is typically resolved through summary judgment or trial — not a motion to dismiss before discovery.

What happens when an employer completes onboarding on your behalf?

When a manager or supervisor fills out digital onboarding forms for an employee, the employer faces a difficult evidentiary challenge proving that the employee personally consented to any agreement contained in those forms. The employee can submit sworn testimony that they never viewed or agreed to the document. The circuit court then weighs that evidence. In this case, the court credited the employees' accounts and found the employer had presented "little to no evidence" of a valid agreement.

Can I appeal an employer's denial of a motion to dismiss?

No. Under Missouri law, the denial of a motion to dismiss is not a final judgment and is generally not immediately appealable. Interlocutory appeal rights in Missouri are narrow and specifically enumerated by statute. The workers' compensation exclusivity argument in this case was dismissed because it was included in the same order denying arbitration — and only the arbitration denial carries interlocutory appeal rights under § 435.440.

What are my rights if I was fired for defending myself at work?

If you were terminated for conduct that occurred in connection with your job, you may have claims for wrongful termination, retaliation, and potentially negligence against your employer if they failed to maintain a safe workplace. Missouri recognizes multiple causes of action for wrongful discharge, including termination in violation of public policy. If you're facing a situation like this, speak with an employment attorney as quickly as possible — statute of limitations deadlines apply.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every situation is different. If you have been fired, threatened, or subjected to a hostile work environment, consult a licensed Missouri attorney about your specific circumstances.

Your employer broke the law. You have rights. Call OTT Law at (314) 710-2740 for a free, confidential consultation.