Two Starbucks employees who fought off armed robbers during a violent confrontation at their St. Louis store were terminated weeks later for violating company policy that requires workers to comply with robbery demands rather than resist.
Armed Robbers Attack Store Near University Campus
Security footage from December 2023 shows two hooded men entering the Starbucks location near St. Louis University in Midtown. One robber aimed a gun at employees behind the counter while ten workers and one customer dropped to the ground. Employee Michael Harris, working the drive-thru, approached the register when ordered but lacked managerial access to open it. The frustrated robber pistol-whipped Harris in the back of the head, causing his vision to go black.
Coworker Devin Jones-Ransom witnessed the weapon being lowered and charged the armed intruder, slamming him into the drive-thru window. The gun shattered on impact, revealing it was fake. Harris joined the counterattack as both employees fought back against their assailants in the dining area.
Robbers Convicted, Employees Terminated
The two robbers, identified as Joshua Noe and Marquis Porter-Doyle, were overpowered by the employees. Noe remained immobilized on the ground while Porter-Doyle escaped. Arrest photos showed Noe’s bloodied face with multiple cuts and scrapes. Both men were later convicted of robbery and sentenced to prison. However, weeks after media attention died down, Harris received a termination call. He expressed shock and confusion at losing his job after defending himself and coworkers during what he described as a life-or-death situation.
Company Policy Sparks Safety Debate
Starbucks defended the firings by citing company policy requiring employees to comply with robbery demands and avoid actions that could escalate risk. The company stated that adherence to safety protocols protects both workers and customers during high-stress situations, despite acknowledging the frightening nature of the incident. Harris had previously reported that the location experienced months of aggressive customer behavior, including threats of assault and thrown objects, with employees leaving due to unsafe conditions.
Legal Response Questions Corporate Approach
Harris’s attorney Ryan Krupp criticized the policy, arguing it could discourage workers from protecting their lives when necessary. The lawyer suggested that punishing employees for self-defense during genuine threats creates a dangerous precedent. The case raises questions about corporate liability policies versus employee safety rights when facing violent crimes. Harris believed he faced imminent death after being struck, making the decision to fight back instinctive rather than calculated. The incident highlights ongoing tensions between corporate risk management strategies and worker protection in increasingly dangerous retail environments.
Walk away, forget Starbucks, you are way better than that job.
That is totally right on!
Shame on Starbucks instructions.
Michael Harris, I hope you will receive a positive conclusion to this situation. Maybe a better more enjoyable employment with higher compensation
No more Starbucks for me and my family. These Teo young men should have been rewarded not fired. Stop this woke madness
Wonder what DEI hire promulgated this doofus policy! S/he is the one who should be fired, not these two. Hope they land on their feet somewhere, where they’ll be appreciated.
Nothing that a company or their “policy” can or does can negate the natural right of self defense. If a company or business states that self defense is prohibited or the tools necessary for that self defense are prohibited they are responsible to provide the defense that was negated AND when not provided if a incident occurs where BUT FOR being disarmed that person disarmed or restricted was injured in any fashion that company or business is 100% liable and responsible, possibly criminally responsible, for whatever occurs. I suggest that the workers fired should contact the USDOJ branch headed by Harmeet Dhillon for their action or assistance, as this is now a Civil Rights issue, I did the same regarding the attempt by the State of New Mexico to pass patently unconstitutional anti gun legislation.
Starbucks should be ashamed a guy sees his friend getting assaulted and came to his aid. They are heroes no more Starbucks for me
Legally…Starbucks will lose in a court action by the employees. Starbucks is closing hundreds of locations nationally for varied reasons…that is the first sign of mismanagement and this action that we are discussing is another example of corporate ignorance. Starbucks is permitted…legally…to have their policy on theft intervention; however, you always side with the employees should they side step that policy for each individual case merits.