A federal appeals court on Friday largely rejected Starbucks' appeal to the National Labor Relations Board, which found the coffee chain illegally fired two Philadelphia baristas because they wanted to unionize.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit says Starbucks doesn't have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the NLRB's administrative law judge, ruling that Amazon, Trader Joe's and Elon Musk's space seek to limit the agency's enforcement powers. He said there is a possibility that companies such as X may suffer setbacks.
Circuit Judge Thomas Ambro found substantial evidence supporting the NLRB's conclusion that Starbucks engaged in unfair labor practices by firing Ekko Nowakowska and Tristan Bussiere from its South Philadelphia store and reducing Nowakowska's hours. He wrote his evidence to a panel of three judges.
The court also found substantial evidence that Starbucks knew before firing that the baristas were recording their meetings with supervisors without their consent, and that the inappropriate recordings were only discovered later. Therefore, the company rejected Starbucks' argument that there was no need to rehire the baristas using the slush funds.
But the Philadelphia-based court said the NLRB overstepped its authority by ordering Starbucks to pay foreseeable costs resulting from the barista's termination.
These may have included the cost of finding a new job or paying out-of-pocket medical costs.
Starbucks fired Novakowska in January 2020, citing poor performance and customer abuse, and announced the following month that Busiere had been fired for spreading a false rumor that another barista was being fired.
Neither Starbucks nor its attorney immediately responded to requests for comment. A spokesperson for the NLRB declined to comment.
Many Starbucks employees have accused the Seattle-based company of unfair labor practices, which the company denies as workers campaign to unionize at stores across the country. I am doing it.
The campaign included strikes at more than 300 stores this month, according to Starbucks Workers United.
The case marked the first time a federal appeals court considered broad challenges to the NLRB's enforcement powers, including whether administrative law judges are unconstitutionally protected from presidential removal.
Umbro said Starbucks doesn't have standing to challenge removal protection because it can't prove harm.
The case is NLRB v. Starbucks Corporation, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, No. 23-1953. Starbucks Corp. v. NLRB, Same Court, No. 23-2241.
