US Supreme Court Denies Starbucks Employees Injunction Against Termination

Case Background

The case stemmed from an incident in 2022 where several Starbucks employees in Nashville, Tennessee (US State), announced their intention to unionize. They invited a local television crew to the store after hours to document and promote their efforts. In response, Starbucks terminated multiple employees involved in the event stating violations of company policy. The employees contended that these actions were retaliatory and aimed at discouraging unionization.

The NLRB filed an administrative complaint against Starbucks and alleged unfair labor practices. It sought a preliminary injunction to reinstate the fired employees while the case was pending. The NLRB argued that such reinstatement was crucial to prevent a "chilling effect" on union activities among other employees.

Section 10(j) of the NLRA grants the NLRB the authority to seek temporary injunctions against employers and unions in federal district courts. These injunctions are intended to provide immediate relief while a case is being litigated before the Board. The primary goal of these injunctions is to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm to employees' rights under the NLRA while the Board resolves the underlying unfair labour practice charges.

District Court and Appellate Decisions

The District Court assessed the NLRB's petition using a two-part test. This test evaluated whether there was reasonable cause to believe that unfair labour practices had occurred and whether injunctive relief was "just and proper." The court granted the injunction, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.

However, the Supreme Court held that the lower courts erred by not applying the traditional four-factor test for preliminary injunctions, as articulated in the 2008 case Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. This test requires the plaintiff to demonstrate:

1. A likelihood of success on the merits.

2. A likelihood of suffering irreparable harm without the injunction.

3. That the balance of equities tips in their favour.

4. That an injunction is in the public interest.

The Supreme Court held that:

“Nothing in §10(j)'s text overcomes the presumption that the four traditional criteria govern a preliminary-injunction request by the Board. Section 10(j) authorizes a district court “to grant to the Board such temporary relief . . . as it deems just and proper.” We do not understand the statutory directive to grant relief when the district court “deems” it “just and proper” to jettison the normal equitable rules. To the contrary, the phrase “just and proper” invokes the discretion that courts have traditionally exercised when faced with requests for equitable relief. As a matter of ordinary meaning, the word “just” means “fair” and “righteous.””

Supreme Court's Decision

The Supreme Court in an opinion delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas held that the NLRB must meet the same stringent standards as any other party seeking a preliminary injunction. Justice Thomas held that the two-part test used by the lower courts effectively lowered the bar for the NLRB, which was not the intent of Congress when enacting Section 10(j).

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, while concurring with the judgment, highlighted that the irreparable harm to workers awaiting reinstatement during lengthy legal processes should be a critical consideration. She held that Congress's directives in the NLRA aimed to protect workers' rights and that the court's decision might undermine these protections by imposing more stringent standards on the NLRB.

This decision potentially provides employers with greater latitude in managing employment decisions during union organizing campaigns in United States. By requiring the NLRB to meet the four-factor test, the ruling makes it more challenging for the Board to obtain preliminary injunctions.

Case Title: Starbucks Corp. V. Mckinney, Regional Director Of Region 15 Of The National Labor Relations Board

Click Here To Read Order