Colloquially speaking, the term “unicorn” is often used to describe something that’s pretty unique. Well, that definitely wasn’t the case with Starbucks’ now-extinct “Unicorn Frappuccino,” according to a new lawsuit filed against the company.

Williamsburg coffee shop The End Brooklyn is suing the green-strawed giant, claiming it ripped off its popular “Unicorn Latte” and created an unfair competitive advantage.

!! RG: @lorensaidwhat

A post shared by The End Brooklyn (@thendbrooklyn) on Feb 4, 2017 at 1:35pm PST

The End introduced its $9 Unicorn Latte in December and applied to register the name with the United States Patent and Trademark Office in January. The application is still pending.

But even though “latte” is in the drink’s name, it actually doesn’t contain coffee or milk. Instead, it’s made up of a latte blended fresh ingredients such as cold-pressed ginger, lemon juice, cashews, and maca root–while Starbucks’ drink is made up of a whole lot of sugar and food coloring.

“The Unicorn Latte has been the most popular product we’ve created to date, so we were shocked and disappointed when Starbucks came out with the Unicorn Frappuccino, which is similar to our product in name and appearance, but has none of its healthy ingredients,” The End co-owner Bret Caretsky said in a statement.

The Unicorn Frappuccino was available in stores from April 19-23. The pink-and-blue drink quickly boosted Starbuck’s third-quarter earnings, inspiring the brand to announce more “Instagramable” drinks to come.

Missed out on the Starbucks Unicorn Frappuccino? Fear not, there’s a new DRAGON version out now https://t.co/Fo7lTVwKmg pic.twitter.com/0spOv7nstw

— Daily Mirror (@DailyMirror) April 26, 2017

The End claims Starbucks’ Unicorn Frappuccino is “deceptively similar” to its Unicorn Latte, to the point where it “caused consumer confusion whereby customers began referring to Starbucks’ product as a ‘Unicorn Latte,’ ” and “began asking employees at The End to serve them a ‘Unicorn Frappuccino,'”according to the lawsuit.

Starbucks fired back with its own official statement:

We are aware of the claims and believe they are without merit. The Starbucks Unicorn Frappuccino blended beverage was inspired by the fun, spirited and colorful unicorn-themed food and drinks that have been trending in social media. The beverage was offered for a limited time in April and is no longer available in our stores.

The End is seeking an undisclosed amount of money for damages–although some reports place the number at $10 million–and a public apology, according to the lawsuit. However, it’s unlikely that it will ever see a dime since it technically holds no copyright for the latte name and Starbucks no longer sells the drink.

Check out the full lawsuit below.

Unicorn Complaint by Eater.com on Scribd

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Unicorn v. Unicorn: Starbucks Sued Over Mystical Frap appeared first on Law Street.

Starbucks announced Tuesday that it would offer free legal advice to employees regarding President Trump’s immigration executive order.

In a letter to employees, the company announced that the legal support for employees and family members would be provided via a new Immigration Advisory Program, set up in partnership with Ernst & Young. The letter stated that the company would be “leading with humanity” through the action.

Since its signing, the executive order has created massive confusion throughout the country after its hasty implementation and vague language left it unclear who exactly would be affected. As a result, many major U.S. corporations have pushed back against the order, as it would likely impact many of their employees.

Starbucks is proving to be one of the companies at the front and center of this corporate resistance. Last month, CEO Howard Schultz announced a plan to hire 10,000 refugees over the next five years. In the letter to employees, Schultz additionally affirmed his support for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, affordable healthcare for all employees, and the continuation of company business partnerships in Mexico. The letter demonstrated the company’s forceful opposition to many of the new administration’s main policies.

The company’s recent actions have not sat well with some Trump supporters–protestors made plans to boycott the brand as a result of its refugee hiring initiative. However, the #BoycottStarbucks trend also had the opposite effect, drumming up more support for the company.

Conservatives: #BoycottStarbucks

Me: pic.twitter.com/vTGvaWKkaf

— (@goIdenflower) January 31, 2017

Uber, Microsoft, Amazon, and many other big names in the tech industry have also vowed to provide immigration-related legal advice in the wake of the order. However, as BuzzFeed News notes, Starbucks stands out among the rest as an employer of predominantly low-wage workers.

Meanwhile, after a fairly political Super Bowl this past weekend and wave of anti-Trump retail boycotts, it’s clear that corporate America will continue to be pressured to take a stance on the current administration and its policies.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Starbucks is Offering Immigration-Related Legal Advice to its Employees appeared first on Law Street.

Right now, it truly does feel like there are a lot of crazy lawsuits out there. Krispy Kreme was just sued over allegedly-fake berry flavored donuts. Starbucks has been sued  multiple times for not filling drinks enough. Sofia Vergara is currently being sued by her own frozen embryos. There’s a lot of lawsuits. And if you ask anyone what event started this era of (arguably unnecessary) litigiousness in the United States, most would point to the famous “McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit.” But do you actually know the truth behind that lawsuit? TruTV’s “Adam Ruins Everything” took on the topic recently, with an eye-opening segment:

Adam Conover, the host of the comedy/myth debunking show, points out that the 1993 lawsuit was actually pretty legitimate. The 79-year-old woman who spilled the McDonald’s coffee on herself was severely burned and ultimately disabled. The coffee was served at 180 degrees, much hotter than it needed to be. And she didn’t even want to sue McDonald’s, but needed money to pay for her medical bills.

So why do we all remember the McDonald’s coffee lawsuit as such a ridiculous part of legal history? According to Conover, that rumor came from corporations who didn’t want to be sued, in a disinformation campaign to discourage “silly” lawsuits.

And it’s important to note that McDonald’s is still facing allegations that its coffee is way too hot. Earlier this year, two plaintiffs sued the fast food company after they spilled coffee hot enough to cause 2nd-degree burns. Starbucks has also been party to similar suits. While it’s less work for chains to brew coffee super hot to ensure it lasts longer and less people complain that it’s cold, it can be dangerous. And as for the woman who sued McDonald’s originally, as Conover pointed out, she should really be viewed as a hero.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Do You Know the Truth About the McDonald’s Coffee Lawsuit? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

There’s Nothing Fiercer Than a Girl and Her Dog

Ehlena Fry was born with cerebral palsy and when she was five years old her doctor recommended she get a service dog to help her become more independent. But when Ehlena brought Wonder to school, she and her family were told that the dog was “unnecessary,” and officials wouldn’t allow Ehlena to enter school premises with her very necessary service dog.

Ehlena, Wonder, their family and their lawyers fighting for children with disabilities at the Supreme Court today pic.twitter.com/DCu14yJoKH

— ACLU National (@ACLU) October 31, 2016

On Monday, Ehlena, several lawyers from the ACLU, and Wonder hit up the Supreme Court to sue their former school district under the American with Disabilities Act and other federal laws. The school district, which is backed by the National School Boards Association, argues that such lawsuits could cost school districts millions if they go through. Ehlena is now 12 years old and in middle school and Wonder is now retired with a pet’s life.

“He helped her bridge that gap,” Ehlena’s mother observes. “Working with him helped her to learn how to not need him as much.”

A decision is expected next summer.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: November 2, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to the RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through the top five controversial and crazy stories in the world of law and policy each day. So who is ranting and who is raving today? Check it out below:

Vincente Fox Apologizes to Donald Trump for Profanity

Happy #ThrowbackThursday everyone! Remember when the former president of Mexico, Vincente Fox, told Donald Trump in an interview with Breitbart that he would not pay for Trump’s “f****** wall”?

That was crazy. But what’s even crazier is how last night Fox tried making amends with the presumptive GOP nominee in another Breitbart interview. Later the ex-president even invited Trump to Mexico. Fox claims it was in good form of him to apologize and Trump should do the same. Others say that the apology only makes Trump stronger. So does Trump win this rant-filled feud? See for yourself:

NFL warns against hefty meat consumption in Mexico and China for athletes

Vegans and health nuts everywhere are having a field day! The NFL is warning athletes not to eat too much meat from Mexico and China. Apparently eating large quantities of meat produced in those countries can lead to a positive test result for clenbuterol–a muscle building stimulant banned by the league’s drug policy. But besides the fact that this is a total vacation damper, it raises suspicion about the possibility of tainted meat from abroad.

Starbucks introduces new frappuccino despite lawsuits

Starbucks has been in the news quite a bit this week. This week, the coffee chain announced its new frappuccino: the Caramel Waffle Cone frap, which, if I’m honest, sounds freaking delicious!

But remember how Starbucks played us all with their ice-drink ratio thievery and their overall under-filling issue? A number of lawsuits have been filed against Starbucks for profiting off these cheap tactics. I certainly will never forget the day I spent $6 on a latte and was given half a cup of milk. I swore never to shop at Starbucks again. But…I wonder if those Caramel Waffle Cone fraps are any good.

You know me when #StarbucksHappyHour FRAPS are back I am there!! Tried the NEW Caramel Waffle Cone Frap! pic.twitter.com/tpuHLPKXqt

— Sydney Sanchez (@sydneysanchez21) May 4, 2016

Los Angeles: City’s Homeless Population Increases 11 Percent in 1 Year, Officials Say

Los Angeles, the city of Angels (and many say one of the best cities in the world, second to NYC) has a major problem: homelessness. In less than a year, Los Angeles’ homeless population  increased by 11 percent. Among the most affected are veterans and, for the first time ever this year, people between the ages of 18 and 24.

Martin Shkreli: Prosecutors Say Former Turing Pharmaceuticals CEO Facing New Charges

To conclude our Throwback Thursday edition of RantCrush Top 5, let’s talk about Martin Shkreli. Yes, he’s back in the news. This “Pharma bro” is facing new charges, but we mostly remember him as the former CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals who jacked up prices for an AIDS treatment by 5,000 percent overnight. He’s also the same guy who took possession of a prized WuTang Clan album and wouldn’t give it back. But today, Shkreli is facing additional charges for siphoning money from his business to relieve himself of debt at another one of his companies. Seems like everything is just one big game of Monopoly to this kid. Hopefully he’ll soon be out of the news for good.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: Cinco de Mayo Edition appeared first on Law Street.

Another month, another potential class action lawsuit against Starbucks. In March, the coffee company faced a lawsuit alleging that it was shorting customers by under-filling latte cups. This month, a Chicago resident has filed a suit accusing the company of doing the same–but this time, it’s the iced beverages that are brought into question.

The class action lawsuit, filed by Stacey Pincus, claims that the company provides “significantly less product than advertised” for its iced drinks, and blames it on the company’s “standard practices” for making iced drinks. While the drink amounts are advertised to be  8 oz., 12 oz., 16 oz. for tall, grande, and venti drinks respectively, purchasers of iced beverages definitely aren’t getting that amount of liquid.

The lawsuit lays out the process by which the drinks are made, and explains that the company uses “pre-measured plastic scoopers” and black fill lines on the cups to standardize the drink-to-ice ratio in the cup. So the next time your grande iced coffee seems to be more “ice” and less “coffee,” it might actually not be the barista who is at fault.

Similar to the latte lawsuit, this one also alleges that the underfilling of cups is a deliberate move by the company to “make more money or higher profits.” If this lawsuit is approved as a class-action, anyone who purchased an iced beverage from the company in the last decade could be included.

While this may sound like one giant “First-World Problem,” the lawsuit also makes note of the fact that iced beverages cost more than their hot counterparts. Not only are you getting less of your beverage when ordering an iced version, you’re putting up more for it. While it remains to be seen whether this complaint actually carries any legal clout, it seems to put up a more convincing argument than the latte lawsuit, which claimed that the hot beverages were being deliberately undefiled.

The company’s response? They’re not having it. A spokeswoman for the company responded by saying, “Our customers understand and expect that ice is an essential component of any ‘iced’ beverage. If a customer is not satisfied with their beverage preparation, we will gladly remake it.” Or in other words, this:

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Deja Vu: Starbucks Faces (Another) Lawsuit For Underfilling Drinks appeared first on Law Street.

Have you ever felt shorted by your barista during your morning Starbucks run?  You’re not alone: the company is facing a class-action lawsuit filed in the state of California last Wednesday for allegedly not providing latte drinkers with the promised amounts of beverage.

While the Tall, Grande and Venti cup sizes are meant to be 12, 16, and 20 ounces respectively, the lawsuit alleges that the cups are “approximately 25 percent underfilled.” The two plaintiffs, Siera Strumlauf and Benjamin Robles, appear to have done their research, as the lawsuit alleges that they “purchased and measured Starbucks Lattes at different stores, in different states, in different sizes, and in different flavors.” Alas, apparently none of them lived up to the amounts stated on the menu.

While to some, this may sound like a petty issue to sue over, the plaintiffs claim that their grievances go deeper than just being shorted a few ounces of sweet, caffeinated goodness, but may actually be a conspiracy by the company: “…by underfilling its lattes, thereby shortchanging its customers, Starbucks has saved countless millions of dollars in the cost of goods sold and was unjustly enriched by taking payment for more product than it delivers.” 

If you’re an avid Starbucks latte drinker, you may also seek to benefit if the Plaintiffs can successfully bring a case against the company According to Top Class Actions, if approved as a class action lawsuit, “…it will be open to all U.S. Class Members who purchased a Starbucks Latte” (apologies to all the Frappucino fans out there, you’re out of luck this time).

Starbucks, on its part, does not seem worried. The company issued a statement to Seattle P-I last Friday stating the following:

We are aware of the plaintiffs’ claims, which we fully believe to be without merit. We are proud to serve our customers high-quality, handcrafted and customized beverages. Hand-prepared beverages increase the likelihood of variations, as disclosed in the nutritional section of our website. Customers often prescribe for us how they want their beverage prepared (e.g. with room, extra foam), therefore beverage volumes are largely collaborative. If a customer is unhappy with their beverage preparation then we are happy to remake it to their satisfaction.

Whether or not the company will face legal consequences remains to be seen, but the question remains: is this just a frivolous lawsuit, or a campaign against corporate greed? Your call.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Angry Latte Drinkers Sue Starbucks for Underfilling Cups appeared first on Law Street.

Ever since Starbucks unveiled its new minimalist red cup design, everyone has been freaking out for incredibly stupid reasons. And speaking of incredibly stupid, Donald Trump has now gotten involved in the debate, so we should expect this silly controversy to continue.

First, there were a few people posting that the design, which doesn’t feature anything noticeably Christmas-y, is anti-Christian.

The complainers inexplicably include Rob Lowe:

Between their program to have baristas lecture me about race and now their removal of “Merry Christmas” I’m officially over @Starbucks#done

— Rob Lowe (@RobLowe) November 10, 2015

Joshua Feuerstein, a social media personality, posted a video to Facebook in which he “tricked” Starbucks into writing Merry Christmas on its cups by telling the barista that was his name when ordering his drink.

Today in Pointless Conservative Christian Self-Martyrdom, Joshua Feuerstein & Starbucks Cups https://t.co/liI21KV3TC

— let’s handle mexico (@jbaileystweets) November 8, 2015

The outcry itself actually seemed relatively minor and scattered, but then people started complaining about the people complaining, as the internet is wont to do.

Remember that time in the bible when Starbucks refused to sell Jesus a peppermint mocha cuz he wasn’t wearing shoes? #boycottstarbucks

— Nina Bargiel (@slackmistress) November 9, 2015

This Santa is dressed in Red. Totally offensive. #WarOnChristmas#RedCups#BoycottSanta#boycottstarbuckspic.twitter.com/KnafInx9Qm — bennydiego (@bennydiego) November 10, 2015 

Everyone remembers where we were when they had the first shots in the Great Latte Battle during the War on Christmas. #boycottstarbucks — Tina Dupuy (@TinaDupuy) November 10, 2015

Now, everyone’s favorite troll doll, Donald Trump, has weighed in on the controversy, calling for a possible Starbucks boycott.

The entire thing is epically silly–first of all, there was never Merry Christmas written on the cups to begin with, but rather more generic winter and holiday designs, like trees and snowflakes. Additionally, there are plenty of other Christmas-branded products in Starbucks stores. 

Hey, Christians raging over Starbucks’ red cup, here’s their 2015 Christmas Blend coffee. Not holiday: pic.twitter.com/SJ6im7aak5

— The Rude Pundit (@rudepundit) November 9, 2015

With Trump weighing in, this total first world problem of a debate was somewhat validated, and given even more media coverage. But Starbucks’ stock hasn’t been affected, and plenty of people are still shelling out loads of cash for coffee from the brand. So, this ridiculous argument is just a waste of time and caffeine.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Things We Don’t Care About: Trump Suggests a Starbucks Boycott appeared first on Law Street.

Monday again, huh? It’s rough. I’m not even going to try to dispute that. Ease into the work week with a recap of last week’s top stories from Law Street. Blogger Hannah Kaye took the number one spot with an analytical look at the the myth of “stranger danger” through the lens of the disturbing case of Hannah Graham in Virginia; writer Hannah Winsten took it to the people behind #GamerGate and violence against women to earn the number two spot; and I wrote about Starbucks’ upcoming competition to win free coffee for 30 years. ICYMI, check out the top three stories from last week.

#1 The Case of Hannah Graham and the Myth of Stranger Danger

On September 13 2014, 18-year-old University of Virginia student Hannah Graham went missing, and recently authorities arrested and charged 32-year-old Jesse L. Matthew Jr. in relation to the incident. His current charge is described as abduction with intent to defile in the case of Graham. (Intent to defile meaning he intended to sexually assault the victim.) Matthew is currently being held without bond and is scheduled for a hearing in early December. Unfortunately, after two weeks of searching, Graham has still not been found, but authorities are doing all they can to locate her. Read full article here.

#2 GamerGate Takes Misogyny to a Whole New Level

How many of you are big video game players? Probably a decent number of you. I, personally, don’t really get the whole video game thing, mainly because I didn’t grow up with them. My parents had really strong opinions about what kinds of activities made children’s “brains melt out of their ears.” Melodramatic, Mom. But! I’m in the minority here. You guys totally like to relax with a cold beer and a few hours of Madden, am I right? Read full article here.

#3 Starbucks for Life Campaign: You’re Welcome Law Students

If there are two things common to basically every law student ever, it’s this: 1. You’re exhausted in every possible way imaginable and subsisting on caffeine; and, 2. There’s no point in even thinking about the 30 years it’s going to take you to pay off your student debt. Lucky for (a handful of) you, Starbucks announced its new “Starbucks for Life” campaign. Read full article here.

—

Chelsey Goff (@cddg) is Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University in DC. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at cgoff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

If there are two things common to basically every law student ever, it’s this:

1. You’re exhausted in every possible way imaginable and subsisting on caffeine; and,

2. There’s no point in even thinking about the 30 years it’s going to take you to pay off your student debt.

Lucky for (a handful of) you, Starbucks announced its new “Starbucks for Life” campaign.

Courtesy of Giphy

What is this amazing, sent-from-the-heavens development you ask? Well, we’re not exactly sure — they’re being fairly tight-lipped about it. But what we do know is that later this winter the coffee mega-chain is launching a campaign in which 100 lucky people will win a free food item or drink everyday for 30 years. Which, conveniently, is exactly the same as your loan period so you can be wide awake for every day of it.

Maybe this was a little gem that Oprah thought up while she and CEO Howard Schultz thought up while brainstorming Oprah Chai — YOU GET 30 YEARS OF STARBUCKS! AND YOU GET 30 YEARS OF STARBUCKS! EVERYBODY GETS 30 YEARS OF STARBUCKS!

Courtesy of Giphy.

(It’s a tough call in this moment whether I’d rather have 30 years of free coffee or an Oprah-gifted car…the coffee sounds amazing right now.) However it developed, I can’t wait to compete. Or, OK, probably by “compete” I mean use my Starbucks app a bunch of times and spend a ton of money hoping to increase my chances of winning. Is that how it works? We’ll see.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Starbucks for Life Campaign: You’re Welcome Law Students appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Unlike most of the world I don’t start my day off with a morning cup of Joe. I tend to just jump right into whatever I have going for the day minus the caffeine jolt. I know, it’s a little weird. But all of you who survive your days because of a great cup of coffee should take into consideration that, most likely, that cup of coffee you are drinking is from one of the greatest companies in the United States.

I’ve had my love affair with a venti White Chocolate Mocha with an extra shot of espresso, but too many of those and a massive anxiety attack will cause anyone to stop with the coffee for a while. Starbucks makes a mean cup of coffee and you can have it any way you want it, that’s the point of their existence. Until now. I was intrigued the other day when I heard the announcement that Starbucks would be paying for any employee who works 20 hours or more to go back to school. It was even more interesting to discover that it would be online and at Arizona State University. I find it odd that there is a specific school that Starbucks has teamed up with in order to get their employees a higher education. Why Arizona State? Isn’t Starbucks a Seattle-based company? Wouldn’t they want to promote a Washington state school? These are all valid questions but then I realized, why am I asking such silly questions. I just graduated from Arizona State with my Master’s.

Arizona State is a great school, the curriculum is sharp and to the point. Not to mention I had the greatest experience with the professors. Most college professors are extremely liberal and I did have a few moments of uneasiness when things were said about the Republican Party or conservatives in general but I was allowed to voice my opinion and it was well received. So of course Starbucks would want to pick Arizona State and the online program has such an extensive selection that you could pretty much become a doctor or lawyer through their online program.

Although I have personal reasons for thinking this is a great idea, I wonder how many other people would agree. I mean there are those who may not like the idea of an online education or attending Arizona State, but I feel like this is a great partnership between Starbucks and ASU. I don’t think, though, that Starbucks is taking into account what their employees might want out of their own education. Some may not feel comfortable with the online method of learning or they may learn better in a classroom. Though an online education is just as good as being in a classroom, some just don’t do well with it. There is a certain kind of person who can succeed with the online program and that is usually someone who is very dedicated and organized. Online classes are in no way easier then classroom courses; in some instances they are even harder. With that being said it is a great step in the right direction for a company to promote education and to want to help their employees become better in their own personal lives.

All in all I say kudos to Starbucks and Fear the Fork!

—

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [Jun Seita via Flickr]

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Starbucks and Arizona State Team Up in Exemplary Partnership appeared first on Law Street.