A casual reply email cost a Starbucks manager his lawsuit
On February 18, 2026, Ontario Superior Court Justice E. Iacobucci ruled that a short acceptance email from a store manager was enough to bind him to a voluntary separation deal with Starbucks Coffee Canada Inc., dismissing his wrongful dismissal claim and ordering him to sign a full and final release.
Derek Stribling worked for Starbucks between 2010 and 2017, returned in May 2022 as a store manager, and went off on a mental health leave in March 2023. When he returned in July 2023, a dispute arose: Starbucks claimed that Stribling had told a manager that his health conditions were making performance of his tasks impossible, a claim Stribling denied as a fabrication, leading Starbucks to place him on a leave of absence with pay for the first two weeks and an additional week of vacation pay.
On August 11, Starbucks sent Stribling a detailed letter outlining concerns about his performance, his truthfulness in respect of the confidential document situation, and reviewing steps that had been taken previously.
After obtaining one confirmed extension and requesting a second, to which there was no written response but also no recorded opposition, Stribling emailed on September 1: "I have decided to accept Starbucks' offer, issued on August 11, of a mutual separation, including the details and compensation as listed in Serena's letter from that day." He added: "I will sign the Docusign release once I receive it."
Pay, release and no-rehire: inside Starbucks' offer
Under the mutual separation option, Starbucks set an effective end date of September 1, 2023. Until then, Stribling would be relieved of duties but required to respond to communications. The company promised a lump-sum "payment equal to eight weeks' base pay ($11353.60), less required statutory deductions, on the payroll to be processed immediately following the Effective Date."
The offer also addressed how his departure would be recorded with authorities. Starbucks committed to issue a Record of Employment "indicating M for dismissal on a without cause basis so that you may apply for employment insurance benefits," while warning he would indemnify the company if repayment to Service Canada was required.
The letter barred re-employment with Starbucks after the effective date and imposed non-disparagement and confidentiality obligations, including a prohibition on discussing the letter's contents with current employees, agents or consultants, or anyone employed by Starbucks within the preceding 12 months. It required the return of all company property and deletion of Starbucks data from personal devices, and made clear that "prior to receipt of any payment in accordance with Option 2, you must complete a full and final release."
Duress claim rejected, release still required
Stribling did not sign the release and instead sued for wrongful dismissal in November 2023, arguing there was no enforceable agreement, that Starbucks had repudiated the deal by initially sending a "for cause" termination letter, that he received no consideration, and that his acceptance was made under financial duress. Starbucks corrected the "for cause" error when he pointed it out and resent the release.
Justice Iacobucci held that the essential terms were all contained in the August 11 letter and that Stribling's September 1 email acceptance created a binding contract, even though the release was never signed. The judge found Starbucks had offered valid consideration in the form of eight weeks' pay contingent on execution of the release, and that the company had presented options and deadline extensions without illegitimate pressure.
In its conclusion, the court stated: "I grant the motion: the action is dismissed, and Stribling shall execute the full and final release."
See Stribling v. Starbucks Coffee Canada Inc., 2026 ONSC 1030
