Client Alerts & Insights
National Labor Relations Board Feels the Effects of Heightened Injunction Requirements and Reduced Deference to Board Findings
October 31, 2024
Authored By:
As we previously addressed, on June 13, 2024, the Supreme Court struck a blow to the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) and provided employers a major win in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, et al., a case involving a preliminary injunction issued against Starbucks under § 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act. A preliminary injunction under §10(j) is a legal mechanism that the Board uses in its efforts to require employers to take certain action (like reinstating a terminated employee) or to refrain from certain action (like engaging in unfair labor practices).
As a result of that ruling, to obtain a preliminary injunction under § 10(j), the Board must show (1) it is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim against the employer; (2) it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in its favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest.
The Starbucks decision is impactful because the Supreme Court concluded that, on appeal from a final decision by the Board on a § 10(j) injunction, courts do not need to pay deference to the Board’s final decision. Rather, the Supreme Court reasoned that the Board’s final decisions do not “represent the Board’s formal position—they are simply the preliminary legal and factual views of the Board’s in-house attorneys who investigated and initiated the administrative complaint.”
On Monday, October 28, a federal judge in Pennsylvania relied on the Starbucks decision to issue a harsh rebuke to a Board attorney who relied too heavily on the Board’s findings in trying to make the case that the employer, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, should be forced back to the bargaining table. Paying homage to Starbucks, the judge admonished the Board, asserting that “You’ve given me nothing to assess in this hearing . . . I’ve read about what transpired in the administrative hearings, but that’s not what’s before this court today . . . Please read McKinney and understand what it says. It’s no longer the case that I can rely on the administrative record; I cannot rely on it in any way.”
This Court’s invocation of the Starbucks holding serves as another small victory for employers appealing a Board decision. While the Starbucks decision speaks for itself and is favorable in its own right, its developing traction and use in the mainstream provides employers additional ammunition to argue that appeals to federal courts on § 10(j) injunctions should be reviewed on a clean slate. Ultimately, Starbucks and courts that defer to its holdings result in a deck that is slightly less stacked against employers. On the heels of Loper overturning Chevron deference (see alert here), the application of Starbucks, in this case, is another example of government agencies no longer receiving the deference they were previously afforded.
For more information, please contact a member of Benesch’s Labor & Employment Practice Group.
Eric Baisden at ebaisden@beneschlaw.com or 216.363.4676.
Adam Primm at aprimm@beneschlaw.com or 216.363.4451.
Eric M. Flagg at eflagg@beneschlaw.com or 216.363.6196.
Latest News
The Coming State-Law Litigation Wave of 2026-27: “Subscription Trap” Class Actions
The subscription economy keeps growing—and so does the wave of class-action litigation targeting it. While the FTC’s regulatory efforts have drawn headlines, private class actions under state laws pose an even greater exposure risk.
Updates to Fees and Grace Periods for Nonimmigrant Visas
Starting September 9, 2026, the 9-11 Response Biometric Entry-Exit Fee will apply to H-1B and L-1 extension petitions filed by employers subject to the fee. Prior to the new rule, the fee was only required for (1) initial grant of status to a foreign national seeking H-1B or L-1 status and (2) a change of employer in the same status.
Third Circuit Decision Reshapes Creditor Standing in Successor Liability Disputes
The Third Circuit recently held that when determining whether a successor liability claim belongs to a bankruptcy estate, the key question is whether the claim seeks to remedy harm suffered by all creditors collectively or a unique injury suffered by a specific creditor. The fact that creditors may be permitted to bring the claim outside of bankruptcy is not, by itself, determinative.
CMS Proposes Sweeping Restrictions on Remote Patient Monitoring: The Outsourcing Ban, Reimbursement Revaluation and Potential Code Consolidation in the CY 2027 Physician Fee Schedule Proposed Rule
CMS’s CY 2027 Proposed Rule would significantly restrict Medicare reimbursement for Remote Patient Monitoring (RPM) and Remote Therapeutic Monitoring (RTM), including banning outsourced clinical staffing, adding new patient-relationship and initiating-visit requirements, reducing certain reimbursement rates, and exploring consolidation of existing billing codes.