Client Alerts & Insights
Supreme Court Clarifies §10(j) Preliminary Injunction Standard
June 13, 2024
Authored By:
On June 13, 2024, the Supreme Court struck a blow to the NLRB and provided employers a major win in 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 NLRB 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).
In its opinion (Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, et al.) the Court held that the traditional preliminary injunction test applies to the NRLB, instead of the much less stringent two-part test that some courts, including the 6thCircuit Court of Appeals (Ohio, Michigan, Tennessee, and Kentucky) had been applying. Given the increased labor activity under the Biden Administration, the Court’s ruling is a welcome win for employers that should result in the NLRB filing fewer §10(j) petitions for preliminary injunction or, at a minimum, in fewer orders granting preliminary injunctions under §10(j).
Going forward, to obtain a preliminary injunction under §10(j) the NLRB 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 Court, in siding with Starbucks, rejected the NLRB’s argument that it should be held to a less exacting standard than the average plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction. Instead, the Court found that nothing in the law suggests that the NLRB should be treated differently than any other litigant who requests a preliminary injunction. And while Congress could amend the National Labor Relations Act to allow the NLRB to proceed under a less stringent preliminary injunction test, such a result seems unlikely given Congress’ current party breakdown.
For more information, contact a member of Benesch’s Labor & Employment Practice Group.
Eric Baisden at 216.363.4676 or ebaisden@beneschlaw.com.
Joseph R. Blalock at 614.229.9359 or jblalock@beneschlaw.com.
Latest News
Owner-Operators and Federal Leasing Regulation Compliance: Legal Q&A
Key Takeaways: The longstanding practice of many motor carriers operating through independent contractor owner-operators remains today despite the many legal …
Group Defamation Claims and the Evolving Limits of the Group Libel Doctrine
Courts are increasingly willing to look beyond the traditional small-group requirement when assessing whether an allegedly defamatory statement is “of and concerning” a particular plaintiff. Recent decisions suggest that audience perception and real-world impact may matter as much as group size.
HRSA’s Revised 340B Rebate Pilot Drama
The Health Resources and Services Administration’s revised 340B Rebate Model Pilot would replace up-front discounts with post-purchase rebates for 21 drugs beginning January 1, 2027, requiring covered entities to pay full wholesale acquisition cost and submit claims data to recover the 340B discount.
Restrictions on Foreign Interests in the Transportation and Logistics Sector: A Look Ahead
The transportation and logistics industry is not immune from rising concerns about foreign investment. Since the start of this Administration, the U.S. Department of Transportation has steadily turned focus to perceived threats against both public safety and purely domestic operators by non-U.S. interests in the sector.