SCOTUS Limits Availability of Injunctions in NLRB Unfair Labor Practice Cases - Employment Law This Week®
Compliance into the Weeds-Episode 79, Starbucks and Compliance
In Lubin v. Starbucks Corp., the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals considered defendant Starbucks’ appeal of an order denying its motion to compel arbitration of the plaintiffs’ lawsuit alleging that Starbucks sent deficient...more
As previously reported, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals handed Starbucks a victory in NLRB v. Starbucks Corp. by vacating part of an order issued by the National Labor Relations Board (“Board” or “NLRB”) requiring...more
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) has been using a caffeinated approach to challenge employers in unfair labor practice disputes, with Section 10(j) injunction petitions at the top of the menu, often...more
On June 13, 2024, the Supreme Court held that the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) is subject to the same standard as any other litigant when it seeks a preliminary injunction in unfair labor practice cases. This...more
On June 13, 2024, the Supreme Court resolved a long-standing split among circuit courts when it issued a ruling in a high-profile labor dispute between Starbucks and the NLRB. The case originated in Memphis, Tennessee, where,...more
In an opinion drafted by Justice Thomas and joined by seven other Justices, on June 13, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’ affirmation of an injunction issued under Section 10(j) of the...more
The Supreme Court just sided with Starbucks in a case where the Labor Board tried to force the company to temporarily reinstate workers who were fired for hosting media interviews afterhours in a closed store. Starbucks said...more
In a case before the Supreme Court, Starbucks says it fired several employees for violating valid company policies — but the National Labor Relations Board convinced a lower court to reinstate the employees while a legal...more
Can you prevent your employees from handing out pro-union paraphernalia if they’re on a paid break? After brewing on the issue, the D.C. Circuit says no, backing baristas in the first of five National Labor Relations Board...more
As we have been blogging during the Biden presidency, the National Labor Relations Board has become quite aggressive these days. The aggression toward employers has been shown in the types of conduct the Board finds to be...more
When the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or the Board) issues an administrative complaint accusing an employer of unlawful labor practices, it triggers in-house proceedings before the Board. These in-house proceedings...more
On Friday, January 12, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal from Starbucks on a case involving the termination of seven Memphis, Tennessee employees....more
A currently pending federal case reminds us that hospitality employers could have claims for sexual harassment and discrimination brought against them based on the alleged inappropriate conduct of their customers. The...more
California’s wage-and-hour laws are the most protective in the country. These protections, however, often lead to bankrupting, class-action lawsuits. Originally posted in The Press-Enterprise and other Southern California...more
This past summer, in a high-profile case brought against Starbucks, the California Supreme Court resolved an open question concerning compensable time. Or, at least it did to some extent. The court held that California...more
California employers cannot require employees to routinely work — even for just minutes — off-the-clock without compensation, according to the California Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Troester v. Starbucks. ...more
Last Thursday, July 26, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion concluding that coffee retailer Starbucks must pay its employees for off-the-clock duties that take several minutes per shift. In issuing its opinion, the...more
The California Supreme Court issued an opinion on July 26, 2018, and found that the federal Fair Labor Standards Act’s de minimis doctrine does not apply to claims for unpaid wages under the California Labor Code. Federal...more
Douglas Troester v. Starbucks Corporation (July 26, 2018) - On July 26, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued a decision entitled Douglas Troester v. Starbucks Corporation, No. S234969, which should be of concern to...more
Once again, California's Supreme Court has underscored that California employment law can differ from federal law in significant, and typically more employee friendly, ways. In Douglas Troester v. Starbucks Corporation,1 a...more
Last Thursday, the California Supreme Court issued a ground-breaking decision that severely limits employers’ ability to rely on the ‘de minimis’ doctrine as a defense to not paying for minimal increments of off-the-clock...more
The California Supreme Court has rejected the federal Fair Labor Standards Act’s de minimis doctrine and put the burden on employers to account for “all hours worked.” Our Labor & Employment Group explains the court’s ruling...more
On July 26, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Troester v. Starbucks Corp., __ P.3d __ (2018). In the days that have followed, legal headlines have lamented the presumed “death” of the de...more
On August 6, 2012, Douglas Troester, a former shift supervisor at a Starbucks location, filed a lawsuit against Starbucks in state court in Los Angeles, California. Mr. Troester filed his lawsuit on behalf of himself and a...more
It is a small world after all. Last week, the California Supreme Court decided that the de minimus rule, imported by the U.S. Supreme Court into the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in 1946 (Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery...more