For eight years, Samuel Garza III worked at Starbucks in Clovis without any disciplinary actions. His colleagues respected him, the store named him “Employee of the Month,” and he was even tasked with training new employees, he says in court documents.
When his manager discovered he was a registered sex offender, the company fired him in June 2025. The allegations come in a lawsuit filed by Garza, claiming the company knew of his past and that he was protected by state law.
Garza filed the civil lawsuit Feb. 24 in Fresno County Superior Court. Judge Maria G. Diaz will hold a case management conference on June 23.
His attorney, Annie Lu, alleges three counts — violation of the California Fair Chance Act and criminal history discrimination, failure to prevent discrimination, and wrongful termination.
“We are aware of the claims and believe they are without merit, and we are prepared to defend the case,” a Starbucks spokesperson told GV Wire.
…
Starbucks district manager Raul Diaz — also named as a defendant — learned about Garza’s sex offender status from a customer, the lawsuit says. Garza met the next day with a Starbucks security officer and disclosed his status. Starbucks restricted Garza from working with minors.
A few weeks later, on June 4, 2025, another manager, Megan Marquez — also a defendant in the case — fired Garza, the lawsuit said.
…
Well done, Mr. Garza! We wish you the best as you pursue you civil rights.
Good. Unless he pulls a Kramer and accepts a settlement of free coffee for life, I hope he wins so much money that he never has to work again.
These situations just seem so ridiculous. When are we going to stop demonizing people for a particular crime when they’ve paid their debt to society?
It wasn’t that long ago when being homosexual would have caused the same sort of discrimination and revulsion, and look how far we’ve come. I know that someday things will change and so many people will be on the wrong side of history. Pure foolishness. And heartbreaking. I hope he wins the suit!
“One concern, Thurston wrote, was a failed polygraph in 2018 related to answers about romantic partners and drug use. Garza said he was nervous because he was attracted to the polygraph administrator.
“The fact that he could not maintain a professional distance with the polygraph examiner is a problem,” Thurston wrote.”
Really? Is the judge that petty? He didn’t even touch, harass, or make his feelings known to the polygraph examiner. I assume that person is an adult which would impress upon a rational judge that Garza is not all that attractive to children despite him being busted with cp.
Wait, can you actually sue for this? I’m wondering because my ex husband was let go from a company a few years ago due to his record (which was disclosed on fb by some old flame of his that has been trying to ruin his life for years) even though they didn’t do a background check, and they never formally fired him, just stopped putting him on the schedule.