The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Starbucks in a challenge against a labor ruling by a federal judge, making it more difficult for a key federal agency to intervene when a company is accused of illegally suppressing labor organizing. The case involved Starbucks firing seven workers in Memphis who were trying to unionize a store in 2022. The workers alleged they were fired for their unionization efforts, while the company claimed they were dismissed for allowing a television crew into a closed store. The National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint saying Starbucks acted to discourage union activities and asked for an injunction reinstating the workers.
Starbucks petitioned the Supreme Court arguing that federal courts had differing standards when deciding whether to grant injunctions reinstating workers. Some courts had looser standards, requiring the labor board to show “reasonable cause” of labor law violations, while others had stricter standards. Starbucks believed the stricter standard should apply nationwide to reinstate workers. The N.L.R.B. argued that the differences were minor and unnecessary for Supreme Court intervention. The ruling returned the case to the appeals court, signaling a potential threat to the N.L.R.B.’s ability to prevent companies from suppressing union activity.
More than 400 Starbucks stores with over 10,000 workers in the U.S. have unionized since 2021, and nationwide talks on a contract framework began in April. The decision on Thursday is seen as a blow to workers’ rights advocates, who view the injunction as one of the N.L.R.B.’s most effective tools to deter illegal suppression of union activity. While the N.L.R.B. requested fewer than 20 injunctions last year, they serve as a powerful deterrent against companies firing workers attempting to organize. However, critics argue that the agency has used the injunction too frequently in recent years, leading to concerns about its appropriate use.
Lynne Fox, president of Workers United representing the Starbucks employees, criticized the Supreme Court decision as limiting working people’s ability to protect themselves when employers break the law. The ruling is part of a broader movement on the political right seeking to limit the power of federal agencies, including the N.L.R.B. In previous cases, companies like Amazon, SpaceX, and Trader Joe’s have challenged the constitutionality of the N.L.R.B., while conservative justices have considered overturning key legal doctrines such as Chevron deference, which requires deference to federal agencies when interpreting ambiguous laws.
Legal experts warn that if the Supreme Court overturns Chevron deference, it could significantly hamper the government’s regulatory power over various sectors like the environment and healthcare. The ruling in favor of Starbucks continues the trend of reducing the power of federal agencies and undermining their expert status, leading to concerns about the agency’s ability to protect workers and enforce labor laws. While the Supreme Court decision may have immediate implications for the N.L.R.B., it also signals a broader movement towards limiting federal agencies’ authority and regulatory power.
