Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney

Last updated

Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued April 23, 2024
Decided June 13, 2024
Full case name Starbucks Corporation v. M. Kathleen McKinney, Regional Director of Region 15 of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on Behalf of the National Labor Relations Board
Docket no. 23-367
Citations602 U.S. ___ ( more )
Argument Oral argument
Case history
PriorMcKinney v. Starbucks Corp., 77 F.4th 391 (6th Cir. 2023)
Questions presented
Whether courts must evaluate the NLRB's requests for section 10(j) injunctions under the traditional, stringent four-factor test for preliminary injunctions or under some other more lenient standard.
Holding
The National Labor Relations Board, in pursuing injunctive relief, must meet the traditional four-factor test of Winter .
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Amy Coney Barrett  · Ketanji Brown Jackson
Case opinions
MajorityThomas, joined by Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett
Concur/dissentJackson
Laws applied
Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 ( 29 U.S.C.   § 160(j) )

Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, 602 U.S. ___ (2024), was a U.S. Supreme Court case about what standard a court must apply before granting a preliminary injunction requested by the National Labor Relations Board. The Court held that the ordinary four-factor Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council test applies.

Contents

Background

An injunction is a court order requiring a party to do something or to refrain from doing something. A preliminary injunction is one that lasts until there is a final judgment in the case, at which point the court might grant a permanent injunction under the test recognized by eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. (2006).

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council (2008) recognized a general four-factor test to be used when considering a request for a preliminary injunction: [1] [2]

  1. whether the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits
  2. whether the plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief
  3. whether the balance of equities between the plaintiff and defendant justifies an injunction
  4. whether the public interest would be disserved by an injunction

This is known as the Winter test.

Under section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, when the NLRB is considering a complaint about unfair labor practices, it is empowered to petition a district court "for appropriate temporary relief" while the complaint is pending.

Lower courts were split on whether the Winter test applies to 10(j) injunctions. The Fourth, Seventh, Eight, and Ninth Circuits had held that the NLRB needed to satisfy the Winter test, whereas the Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits had held that the NLRB only needed to show "reasonable cause to believe that unfair labor practices have occurred" and that an injunctions would be "just and proper". [2]

Factual background

In 2022, Starbucks fired seven employees who were trying to unionize one of the company's stores in Memphis, Tennessee. Starbucks said that it fired them because they had violated company rules by bringing a television crew into the store after hours. The workers, who called themselves the Memphis Seven, claimed that Starbucks had selectively enforced its policy to retaliate against them for their legally protected union-organizing, filing a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board. [3]

Attorneys for the Board petitioned a district court to issue an injunction requiring Starbucks to reinstate the fired employees while the Board was considering the complaint. [3]

Opinion of the Court

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion, joined by all of the justices except Justice Jackson. The Court held that there is not a special test applied when the National Labor Relations Board requests a preliminary injunction; rather, the ordinary four-factor test from Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council applies.

Dissent in part

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed an opinion concurring in part, dissenting in part, and concurring in the judgment.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Labor Relations Board</span> U.S. federal government agency

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is an independent agency of the federal government of the United States that enforces U.S. labor law in relation to collective bargaining and unfair labor practices. Under the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, the NLRB has the authority to supervise elections for labor union representation and to investigate and remedy unfair labor practices. Unfair labor practices may involve union-related situations or instances of protected concerted activity.

The duty of fair representation is incumbent upon Canadian and U.S. labor unions that are the exclusive bargaining representative of workers in a particular group. It is the obligation to represent all employees fairly, in good faith, and without discrimination.

Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (1951), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that a court will defer to a federal agency's findings of fact if supported by "substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole." Universal Camera added another qualification to the substantial evidence test laid down in Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB. The evidence supporting the agency's conclusion must be substantial in consideration of the record as a whole, even including the evidence that is not consistent with the agency's conclusion.

An unfair labor practice (ULP) in United States labor law refers to certain actions taken by employers or unions that violate the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 29 U.S.C. § 151–169 and other legislation. Such acts are investigated by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously determined that an injunction should not be automatically issued based on a finding of patent infringement, but also that an injunction should not be denied simply on the basis that the plaintiff does not practice the patented invention. Instead, a federal court must still weigh what the Court described as the four-factor test traditionally used to determine if an injunction should be issued.

Lechmere, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 502 U.S. 527 (1992), is a US labor law case of the Supreme Court of the United States on union rights and private property rights. It forbids nonemployee union organizers from soliciting support on private property unless no reasonable alternatives exist.

NLRB v. Hearst Publications, 322 U.S. 111 (1944), was an administrative law case heard before the United States Supreme Court. The case concerned the meaning of the term "employees" in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

NLRB v. Truck Drivers Local 449 , 353 U.S. 87 (1957), is an 8-0 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that a temporary lockout by a multi-employer bargaining group threatened by a whipsaw strike was lawful under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), as amended by the Taft-Hartley Act.

NLRB v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co., 304 U.S. 333 (1938), is a United States labor law case of the Supreme Court of the United States which held that workers who strike remain employees for the purposes of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The Court granted the relief sought by the National Labor Relations Board, which sought to have the workers reinstated by the employer. However, the decision is much better known today for its obiter dicta in which the Court said that an employer may hire strikebreakers and is not bound to discharge any of them if or when the strike ends.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of union busting in the United States</span> Aspect of U.S. history

The history of union busting in the United States dates back to the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century. The Industrial Revolution produced a rapid expansion in factories and manufacturing capabilities. As workers moved from farms to factories, mines and other hard labor, they faced harsh working conditions such as long hours, low pay and health risks. Children and women worked in factories and generally received lower pay than men. The government did little to limit these conditions. Labor movements in the industrialized world developed and lobbied for better rights and safer conditions. Shaped by wars, depressions, government policies, judicial rulings, and global competition, the early years of the battleground between unions and management were adversarial and often identified with aggressive hostility. Contemporary opposition to trade unions known as union busting started in the 1940s, and continues to present challenges to the labor movement. Union busting is a term used by labor organizations and trade unions to describe the activities that may be undertaken by employers, their proxies, workers and in certain instances states and governments usually triggered by events such as picketing, card check, worker organizing, and strike actions. Labor legislation has changed the nature of union busting, as well as the organizing tactics that labor organizations commonly use.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ketanji Brown Jackson</span> US Supreme Court justice since 2022 (born 1970)

Ketanji Onyika Brown Jackson is an American lawyer and jurist who is an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Jackson was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Joe Biden on February 25, 2022, and confirmed by the U.S. Senate and sworn into office that same year. She is the first black woman and the first former federal public defender to serve on the Supreme Court.

Communications Workers of America v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that, in a union security agreement, unions are authorized by statute to collect from non-members only those fees and dues necessary to perform its duties as a collective bargaining representative. The rights identified by the Court in Communications Workers of America v. Beck have since come to be known as "Beck rights", and defining what Beck rights are and how a union must fulfill its duties regarding them is an active area of modern United States labor law.

National Labor Relations Board v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corporation, 306 U.S. 240 (1939), is a United States Supreme Court case on labor laws in which the Court held that the National Labor Relations Board had no authority to order an employer to reinstate workers fired after a sit-down strike, even if the employer's illegal actions triggered that strike.

National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, 573 U.S. 513 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously ruled that the President of the United States cannot use his authority under the Recess Appointment Clause of the United States Constitution to appoint public officials unless the United States Senate is in recess and not able to transact Senate business. The Court held that the clause allows the president to make appointments during both intra-session and inter-session recesses but only if the recess is of sufficient length, and if the Senate is actually unavailable for deliberation, thereby limiting future recess appointments. The Court also ruled that any office vacancy can be filled during the recess, regardless of when it arose. The case arose out of President Barack Obama's appointments of Sharon Block, Richard Griffin, and Terence Flynn to the National Labor Relations Board and Richard Cordray as the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

<i>FedEx Home Delivery v. NLRB</i>

FedEx Home Delivery v NLRB563 F3d 492 is a US labor law case on the scope of protection for labor rights.

NLRB v. SW General, Inc., 580 U.S. ___ (2017), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a person who has been nominated by the President of the United States for a position cannot hold the same job on an acting basis while awaiting Senate confirmation.

Emporium Capwell v. Western Addition, 420 U.S. 50 (1975), was a United States Supreme Court case. The court reversed and remanded the Court of Appeals ruling. The Supreme Court ruled on the basis of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (NLRA).

Sure-Tan, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 467 U.S. 883 (1984) is a United States labor law case that resulted in a split decision before the Supreme Court of the United States. By a 7-2 majority, the Court ruled that undocumented immigrant workers were “employees” covered by the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (NLRA). However, by a 5-4 majority the Court ruled that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) was limited in its remedies for penalizing employers who fired undocumented workers for union organizing in violation of the NLRA. The decision was one of a series limiting the rights of immigrant workers and the power of the NLRB culminating with Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB.

NLRB v. Washington Aluminium Co., 370 U.S. 9 (1962), was a US labor law related Supreme Court ruling concerning the right of workers to engage in protected concerted activity. Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act gives employees the right to "engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection." The Supreme Court ruled that a walk-out was protected activity even if workers did not present "a specific demand upon their employer to remedy a condition they found objectionable."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Starbucks unions</span> Unionization efforts at the multinational coffee shop chain

As of October 2024, over 11,000 workers at 500 Starbucks stores in at least 40 states in the United States have voted to unionize, primarily with Workers United. Workers United and Starbucks have been engaged in negotiations over a national collective bargaining agreement since February 2024. This unionization effort started at a store in Buffalo, New York. About a third of Starbucks' Chilean workforce is already unionized, as well as 450 workers in New Zealand and eight stores in Canada. The longest Starbucks strike lasted 64 days, took place in Brookline, Massachusetts in September 2022 and resulted in the unionization of the employees at that location.

References

  1. Iafolla, Robert (June 13, 2024). "Supreme Court Curbs Labor Board's Power in Win for Starbucks (2)". Bloomberg Law . Retrieved June 26, 2024.
  2. 1 2 Swirsky, Steven M.; Schaefer, Erin E. (June 14, 2024). "Supreme Court Rules NLRB 10(j) Injunctions Must Meet Higher Preliminary Injunction Standard in Blow to NLRB". The National Law Review . Retrieved June 26, 2024.
  3. 1 2 Scheiber, Noam; Nerkar, Santul. "Supreme Court, in Starbucks Ruling, Curbs Labor Regulator's Authority". The New York Times . Archived from the original on June 20, 2024. Retrieved June 20, 2024.

General references

Text of Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, 602 U.S. ___(2024) is available from: Cornell Google Scholar Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion)