Above photo: Starbucks Workers Rally. elliotstoller.
The 8-1 ruling was a blow to union organizers.
Narrowing the authority of the National Labor Relations Board to seek remedies for terminated union activists.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled June 13 in favor of the Starbucks Corporation in the landmark case Starbucks v. McKinney, a devastating blow to union organizers that narrows the authority of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to seek remedies for terminated union activists.
The case, which marked a significant victory for Starbucks and could hinder future labor organizing, centered on whether the NLRB should have the authority to swiftly issue injunctions under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act aimed at halting employers’ alleged unfair labor practices.
“The main reason we submitted the brief was so that the Supreme Court could hear directly from the Starbucks workers who are affected by issues that the court was considering,” said Daniel Rosenthal, a lead author on an amicus brief that was a part of the Starbucks v. McKinney case. “The parties in front of the Supreme Court were Starbucks and the NLRB. The union wasn’t actually a party, technically, and the workers weren’t a party, and so … the NLRB’s brief didn’t really speak for the workers directly.”
The 8-1 ruling, however, wasn’t surprising to Rosenthal, given the Supreme Court’s composition and past rulings on labor issues. The crux of the matter lies in Section 10(j) injunctions, which allow for expedited legal actions against employers accused of violating labor laws. Rosenthal highlighted that these injunctions are rarely sought, averaging about 15 per year nationwide. Despite their underutilization, they serve as a crucial tool in protecting workers from unlawful employer actions.
“The impact [of this ruling] is somewhat limited because of the low number of injunctions sought,” Rosenthal said. “It makes it more likely that Starbucks will be able to defeat the injunction requests [in the future] and avoid having to provide a remedy.”
The ruling also underscores ongoing tensions between corporate interests and labor rights advocates.
“Working people have so few tools to protect and defend themselves when their employers break the law,” said Lynne Fox, president of Workers United, which represents Starbucks workers, in a statement. “That makes [the] ruling by the Supreme Court particularly egregious. It underscores how the economy is rigged against working people all the way up to the Supreme Court.”
The case stemmed from a challenge by Starbucks against a 2022 federal district court ruling that ordered the reinstatement of seven baristas who were fired from a Memphis store allegedly in retaliation for union organizing.
Seattle-based Starbucks Corporation argued that under company policy, it was within its rights to terminate the workers because they violated rules by allowing a television news crew into the store after hours. The NLRB supported the baristas’ claim of wrongful termination and sought a court injunction that mandated Starbucks to rehire the fired workers.
However, the Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, criticized the legal framework used by the district court as an overly broad, “watered-down approach” that’s inconsistent with other judicial precedents. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed with the majority, though she dissented on specific aspects of the ruling.
Fox has condemned the ruling, saying that it highlights the challenges workers face when trying to protect their rights against employers who violate labor laws.
“Starbucks should have dropped this case the day it committed to chart a new path forward with its workers, instead of aligning itself with other giant corporations intent on stifling worker organizing,” said Fox. “It’s incongruous to want to build a productive, positive relationship with workers and at the same time lead an attack on one of the few mechanisms they have to defend themselves against unscrupulous employers.”
Despite the setback, Fox emphasized that organizing efforts will continue at Starbucks locations nationwide. In the week before the ruling, 20 stores filed petitions to join Starbucks Workers United, and, since 2021, nearly 450 Starbucks stores have unionized across the country, covering more than 10,000 baristas. The union and the company resumed bargaining in April to form a foundational framework for individual stores’ contracts.
“Regardless of large corporations’ machinations at the Supreme Court, workers are continuing to organize,” said Fox. “Workers’ momentum is unstoppable, and they will not let the Supreme Court slow them down.”
Rosenthal expressed a desire for legislative action to amend Section 10(j) of the NLRB to restore effective protections for workers.
“In an ideal world … Congress would pass legislation to make the Section 10(j) process more effective in general and make it possible for the NLRB to seek more 10(j) injunctions,” Rosenthal said. “It’s a really important tool, [and] Congress does have the power to restore that to something that would be useful.”