NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, WORKERS UNITED v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION - Articles

All Content

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, WORKERS UNITED v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Nov 5, 2025

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Eric Weitz, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Sarah M. Harris, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Ruth Burdick, Milakshmi Rajapakse, David Seid, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Sarah M. Harris, Lisa S. Blatt, Tyler J. Becker, Dana S. Gotfryd, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Judge(s): BATCHELDER, STRANCH, and READLER, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: On Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board

READLER, Circuit Judge. After working as a shift supervisor at a Starbucks café for nearly three years, Hannah Whitbeck led a movement to organize a union there. Several months into that campaign, Starbucks fired her. In its termination letter, the company justified its decision with a seemingly innocuous explanation: Whitbeck left an employee alone in the café for roughly half an hour, without telling any supervisor or co-manager, in violation of company policy. Through the filing of an administrative complaint, the National Labor Relations Board challenged this explanation. In the Board’s view, Starbucks discharged Whitbeck due to her organizing activity, thereby committing an unfair labor practice in violation of § 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the National Labor Relations Act. An Administrative Law Judge agreed. Starbucks Corp., 372 NLRB No. 122, slip op. at 21, 2023 WL 5137739 (Aug. 9, 2023). The Board later affirmed that decision and expanded the statutory remedy, ordering Starbucks to compensate Whitbeck for any “direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms” suffered because of the anti-union discrimination against her. Id. at 4–5. We grant the Board’s petition for enforcement of its decision that Starbucks committed an unfair labor practice. But because the Board exceeded its statutory authority in awarding Whitbeck “direct or foreseeable” monetary damages, we vacate the remedy and remand.

Attachments: