All NewsEducationTVBrokers
Equities & FundsCrypto & Digital AssetsAI & TechnologyBusiness & CorporateUS Politics & PolicyGeopolitics & Global RiskMacro, Rates & FXCommodities & EnergyEuropean Politics & MarketsAsia-PacificReal Estate & Property
All NewsHome
← Back to US Politics & Policy

US appeals court narrows NLRB ruling against Starbucks union-busting claims

Created at 4 Sep · 6:46 PM1 source↑ Market-relevant
IN SHORT

A U.S. appeals court on Friday rejected most of a National Labor Relations Board ruling that found Starbucks illegally threatened employees for unionizing. The court upheld one finding that Starbucks threatened to deny benefits to a pregnant employee if workers unionized.

Key Numbers

700Starbucks stores with unionized employees
2-0decision vote count

Who's Involved

National Labor Relations Board
U.S. agency that issued the original ruling against Starbucks
Starbucks
Coffee chain facing allegations of illegal labor practices
5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
Federal appeals court that issued the decision
Stephen Higginson
Circuit Judge who wrote the opinion
Maia Cuellar-Serafini
Pregnant employee who received benefit threat
Carmella Neri
Store manager whose statements were deemed not coercive

↳ Why This Matters

The ruling narrows the scope of the NLRB's authority in cases against Starbucks, potentially impacting future labor disputes and the company's efforts to unionize its workforce.

Key facts

  • A U.S. appeals court rejected most of a National Labor Relations Board ruling that found Starbucks illegally threatened employees for unionizing.
  • The court upheld a finding that Starbucks illegally threatened to deny maternity leave benefits to a pregnant employee if workers unionized.
  • The court found that statements about a hiring pause and reduced hours were not illegal threats.
  • The ruling involved a case concerning a Starbucks store in Wichita, Kansas.
  • Over 700 Starbucks stores have voted to unionize, with numerous complaints filed against the company for alleged illegal labor practices.

A federal appeals court on Friday largely rejected a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruling that found Starbucks had illegally threatened employees and surveilled unionization efforts. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-0 decision, overturned claims that the coffee chain violated labor law by telling employees that a hiring portal closure and reduced store hours were due to union activities.

However, the New Orleans-based court did uphold one finding: that Starbucks illegally threatened to deny maternity leave benefits to a pregnant employee if workers unionized. Circuit Judge Stephen Higginson stated that the statements regarding the hiring portal and store hours did not constitute "threats of reprisal" because a hiring pause did not appear to jeopardize job security, and understaffing could have justified shorter hours. Higginson also found that statements made by a store manager about unionization discussions were not coercive and were "out of the ordinary."

Despite these findings, the court determined there was substantial evidence that the pregnant employee could reasonably believe her benefits might be reduced due to union activities. This decision follows another recent ruling where a different federal appeals court in Manhattan reversed an NLRB finding that Starbucks illegally barred employees from wearing union-supporting t-shirts or pins. That court cited the NLRB's failure to properly balance Starbucks' image with employees' right to encourage unionizing.

Employees at over 700 Starbucks stores have voted to unionize, and hundreds of complaints alleging illegal labor practices have been filed with the NLRB.

Frequently asked questions

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected most of a National Labor Relations Board ruling that found Starbucks illegally threatened employees for unionizing.

The court upheld a finding that Starbucks illegally threatened to deny maternity leave benefits to a pregnant employee if workers unionized.

The court rejected claims that Starbucks illegally threatened employees by closing a hiring portal and reducing store hours due to union activities.

Employees at more than 700 Starbucks stores have voted to join unions.

What Happens Next

01Starbucks and the NLRB did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

How It Developed

A federal appeals court declined to enforce most of a National Labor Relations Board ruling against Starbucks.
The court rejected claims that Starbucks illegally threatened employees by closing a hiring portal and reducing hours due to union activities.
The court upheld a finding that Starbucks illegally threatened to deny maternity leave benefits to a pregnant employee if workers unionized.
The ruling came after Starbucks persuaded another federal appeals court to reverse an NLRB finding regarding union-related apparel.
Employees at over 700 Starbucks stores have voted to join unions, with hundreds of complaints filed against the company for illegal labor practices.

Sources

T1
Starbucks anti-unionization case brought by NLRB narrowed by US appeals courtReuters

Related Stories

US court finds fishery council unconstitutionally powerful, upholds catch limits
3 Sep · 10:14 PM
Trump administration asks Supreme Court to lift mail-in ballot rule block
3 Sep · 8:27 PM
FCC asks court to reject Disney lawsuit over station licenses
3 Sep · 9:36 PM
Tunisian court upholds long sentences for opposition members
3 Sep · 8:52 PM
SEC proposes reforms to political contribution rule for investment advisers
3 Sep · 8:44 PM