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!
And way better than that woke leftist company.
Agree 100 percent , these companies would rather see employees lose their lives or be seriously injured just to save a damn dollar . Never been to a Starbucks , never will . These companies arent taking any steps to insure employee safety.
I agree! The owners have a high opinion of their coffee, which in my opinion is way over priced! I think Mc Donalds coffee is much better!
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.
Everyone going to that Starbucks should boycot it.
NEVER Go to STARBUCKS !!!!!!!
So all employees and customers are supposed to cow down and remain submissive. I wonder if this has happened in fast paced food places around the U.S. and then the perps then just shot everyone who could possibly describe them later to eliminate any possible witnesses. I think people should stand up whenever possible. Remember 911. One plane the passengers stood up. People that stand up show that they have a need to protect. They are winners and should be rewarded. Sounds like a Woke Business. I will not be giving them my business ever from here on out!
Jim Lopez
You know it’s bad Management when they turn around and give people $20-$30 an hour to serve coffee. And then they turn around and charge a customer $10-$15 for a freaking cup of coffee. I know a number of people that quit going there when they did that cause the prices just got too high. All you idiots that go to Starbucks probably can’t even pay your student loans, but by God, you can buy a Starbucks coffee.
Reminds me of a skit from liar liar. Man breaks into home and slips and falls and injures himself and then sues the family. In this application thankfully, the people were not harmed, what if the robber shoots one? Whom is at fault? The worker? The criminal comitting the robbery? How about this instead….what if the family was to sue Starbucks for wrongful death if a worker was to get shot? Sounds a bit off ya? Then do this…level the playing field. Ya not gonna tell the criminals that they are not gonna be comming in armed, become a harder target, learn to shoot back or lose your business. Stop being the soft business.
Dumbest corporate decision I have ever heard of. The robber pistol whips an employee and the company expects them to accept the beating. Starbucks, you suck. Now every location is a target for theft because it has been published you allow it. Dumb, dumb, dumb!
So the company says employees are just supposed to kick back and watch fellow employees get beat down. Sound like upper mgt needs a good old fashioned azz whopping to help them understand what they are demanding ! Yeah, I cut out this company a long time ago. They can take their liberal crap and shove it..
Oh NO! This site didn’t like my comment that will never be posted. They are as liberal as the company in question !
There used to be a Starbucks in a B&N near me. Unfortunately, the B&N had a fire, and closed. Whenever I had money, I would go to B&N and have lunch in the Starbucks cafe. I didn’t drink the coffee–too fancy for my taste. I like to say the bravest thing I ever did was walk into Starbucks and ask for a plain cup of coffee. I prefer Folgers anyway. But they did have some delicious items on their menu that I enjoyed. I miss the B&N more than the Starbucks.
BOYCOTT STARBUCKS FOR A WEEK OR MORE
TRY SOMEONE ELSE’S PRODUCTS.
SHAME ON STARBUCKS!!
SOME POLICIES NEED TO BE RE-REVIEWED OVER EACH INCIDENT OCCURRED.
ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL .
NEVER go to any Starbucks ever again. This corp. policy is stupid and dangerous. If the robbers know they will not fight back then there is nothing to make them stop and think about what could happen, the robbers already know what is going to happen, they are going to rob and get away with it. I would sue to get my job back and make them pay for any and all damages, hurt feelings, ect. Starbucks is not all that great to start with but to act like this. TAKE THEM DOWN!!