She was cleared to return with accommodations—but never got the chance, lawsuit says
A former Starbucks employee is suing the coffee giant, claiming she was fired the same day she returned from disability leave.
Misty Hampton filed her lawsuit against Starbucks Corporation in federal court in Missouri on February 2, 2026, alleging the company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act when it terminated her employment. The case puts a spotlight on a question many HR leaders grapple with: what happens when workplace conduct issues collide with an employee's protected leave?
Hampton worked for Starbucks at locations across Missouri, including Washington, Sullivan, and Wildwood, from February 2024 until her termination in February 2025. According to court documents, she developed situational anxiety, adjustment disorder, and depression during her time with the company. These conditions, she says, substantially affected her daily life, causing headaches, chronic neck pain, vertigo, and visual disturbance that impaired her ability to drive or concentrate.
In late August 2024, Hampton took approved short-term leave to address her health. She sought treatment and, by early February 2025, was ready to return to work with reasonable accommodation.
What happened next is at the heart of the dispute.
On February 3, 2025, Starbucks terminated Hampton. The reason given, according to the lawsuit, was that she had been "consistently mis-gendering a non-binary partner despite prior coaching." The company also cited her failure to complete a Transgender Partner Support Training while she was out on leave.
Hampton disputes both justifications. She maintains she never engaged in the alleged conduct and was never coached about misgendering any coworker. She also argues she could not have completed workplace training while on disability leave.
Perhaps more troubling for HR observers, Hampton alleges that Starbucks refused to discuss her accommodation needs when she was cleared to return. Instead, the company showed her the door.
The lawsuit accuses Starbucks of terminating Hampton because of her disabilities, in retaliation for taking leave, and because she would have required ongoing accommodations. Hampton also claims the company acted deliberately to discourage other employees from seeking similar protections.
Before heading to court, Hampton filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The agency issued her a right-to-sue notice on December 3, 2025, clearing the path for litigation.
Hampton is now seeking back and front pay, compensation for emotional distress, punitive damages, attorney fees, and costs. She has requested a jury trial.
Starbucks has not yet responded to the allegations, and no determination on the merits has been made.
For HR professionals, the case serves as a stark reminder of the risks that arise when performance or conduct concerns intersect with an employee's return from medical leave. The timing of any adverse action, the quality of documentation, and a demonstrated commitment to the accommodation process can make or break an employer's defense. When those elements fall short, what looks like a justified termination can quickly take on the appearance of retaliation.
