Starbucks received a sympathetic reception Tuesday at the Supreme Court as it challenged a lower court ruling that reinstated seven employees amid a unionization drive.
As the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) processes complaints, judges are weighing how difficult it will be to block unfair labor practice claims, which could take years.
Federal appeals courts apply various legal tests to when to invoke so-called 10(j) injunctions, which can force companies to reinstate employees, keep facilities open, or suspend changes to company policies. are doing.
A lower court ordered Starbucks to apply a more lenient test and reinstate seven employees.
Starbucks says the version is “deeply problematic” and is asking the judge to order the lower court to apply the traditional, stricter four-factor test instead.
Some of the court’s conservative justices appeared sympathetic to this position, pressing the government on its proposed standards while asking relatively few questions of Starbucks’ lawyers.
“No alphabet soup agency of any kind does anything like this… So why is this particular statutory system different from many other agencies?” Justice Neil Gorsuch, the government’s lawyer, said. asked.
The case stems from the “Memphis Seven,” seven Starbucks employees who were fired in 2022 during unionization efforts.Employees publicly posted letters addressed to the company’s CEO and sat inside the store. with a TV news crew To discuss organizing efforts.
The coffee giant has legally fired an employee who violated company policy on the day of the TV interview by going behind the counter while off-duty and unlocking a locked door to allow an unauthorized person to enter the store. It was announced that.
The controversy comes amid a widespread wave of unionization at Starbucks. Starbucks Workers United announced earlier this year that 400 stores with more than 10,000 employees had joined the union.
Starbucks is not challenging the constitutionality of the NLRB. At issue before the justices is what the standard is for going to court to seek an injunction until a labor grievance is resolved, as the NLRB did to reinstate the Memphis Seven. The question is, will it be applied?
Starbucks argues that courts should apply the four traditional standards, but that the NLRB deserves more respect given its role in investigating illegal labor practices.
Judge Amy Coney Barrett said, “Since the district court is an independent check and the district court is empowered to do it, why not do what the district court does?”
During oral arguments, several justices agreed with this opinion, but not all of them agreed.
“This is not just a standard preliminary injunction that district courts routinely issue in ordinary general litigation,” said Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of the court’s liberals.
Lisa Blatt, an attorney who argued on behalf of Starbucks, rejected that idea, saying, “This is a regular preliminary injunction, this is regular law.”
Assistant Attorney General Austin Rayner, who represents the government, cited data showing that of the 20,000 unfair labor charges the NLRB received last year, only a few sought injunctions at issue. quoted.
“This is not a case where the board engages in abuse or takes any kind of allegations to court,” Rayner said.
This point seemed to resonate with Jackson, who suggested that “this doesn’t seem like a big problem.”
And fellow liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor at one point pointed to data showing that the NLRB’s win rate based on its support criteria is only 61 percent.
“So it’s not a rubber stamp victory,” Sotomayor said.
A decision in Starbucks v. McKinney is expected to be rendered by the end of June.
Copyright 2024 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
