Supreme Court on Thursday The lower court’s decision was overturned The court ordered Starbucks to reinstate seven Memphis employees who were fired during a unionization drive.
The ruling makes it more difficult to immediately block lawsuits alleging unfair labor practices because they move through administrative procedures that sometimes take years. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion for the eight-justice panel, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting in part.
The case began with the “Memphis Seven,” seven employees who were fired by coffee giant Starbucks in the midst of a unionization effort in 2022. They published a letter to the company’s CEO and staged a sit-in in the store.With a TV news crewDiscuss organizing efforts.
Starbucks said it had lawfully fired the employee for violating company policy on the day of the television interview, including standing behind the counter outside working hours and unlocking the door to allow unauthorized people into the store.
Lower courts have been divided on the standard for when to issue so-called “10(j)” orders that allow companies to reinstate employees, keep establishments open and suspend changes to company policies while the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) handles complaints against them.
The Supreme Court’s decision rejects the looser test used in forcing Starbucks to reinstate seven employees, requiring courts to instead use the stricter four-factor test applied in other situations.
“Nothing in Section 10(j) overcomes the presumption that these traditional principles apply,” Justice Thomas wrote in the majority opinion. “We therefore conclude that the district court must use the traditional four-part test in evaluating the Commission’s request for a preliminary injunction under Section 10(j).”
The NLRB only seeks preliminary injunctions in a handful of cases each year, but this decision raises the bar for companies to seek such orders from the court.
Jackson agreed that the lower court’s decision should be set aside but dissented in part, saying the majority “ignored the choice Congress made when it established the NLRB.”
“I am unwilling to bless the expansion of judicial power when Congress has so clearly limited the discretion of the courts and so obviously intended to leave the primary determinations of both the substance and procedure of litigation to specialized agencies it created,” Jackson wrote.
In a statement, Starbucks’ union called the Supreme Court’s decision “egregious.”
“When employers break the law, workers have few recourses to protect and defend themselves, which makes today’s Supreme Court decision particularly egregious. It underscores how the economy is rigged against workers, all the way up to the Supreme Court,” said Lynn Fox, president of Workers United, which represents union members at hundreds of Starbucks stores.
The NLRB declined to comment on the Supreme Court’s decision, but in April its counsel said the difference in the tests was “a difference in terminology, not substance,” and that the board has used both tests successfully.
Starbucks said in a statement that it continues to work toward reaching a ratified contract despite the ruling.
“Partners are at the core of our business, and we are committed to providing a bridge to a better future for everyone who wears our green apron,” Starbucks said in a statement. “We remain focused on making progress toward our goal of achieving franchisee ratification agreements this year. Consistent federal standards are important to ensure employees know their rights and that consistent labor practices are followed, no matter where they work or live in the country.”
Updated 12:17 p.m.
