On June 13, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow to the National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB” or the “Board”) ability to seek injunctive relief during the pendency of an unfair labor practice proceeding.  In a near unanimous decision (Justice Jackson dissented in part but concurred in the judgment), the Court rejected the Board’s argument that injunctive relief under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or the “Act”) requires a lesser showing than the traditional standard for a preliminary injunction. 

The Court’s decision comes on the heels of a unanimous decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacating a Section 10(j) injunction against Amazon. 

These recent decisions show that federal courts will not ease the Board’s burden for securing the typically extraordinary remedy of injunctive relief, which could weaken the Board’s remedial power while litigation is ongoing.

The Supreme Court’s Starbucks Decision

In Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, the NLRB sought a Section 10(j) injunction against Starbucks after the Company terminated several employees in Memphis, Tennessee for violating company policy by inviting local media to cover an ongoing unionization effort.  The former employees then filed unfair labor practice charges alleging the terminations were unlawful.  The Board petitioned the District Court for the Western District of Tennessee for a temporary injunction under Section 10(j) that would require the reinstatement of the former employees for the duration of the unfair labor practice proceedings.

Section 10(j) of the NLRA authorizes the Board to seek temporary injunctive relief from a federal district court while the merits of an unfair labor practice case are being litigated to ensure that any remedy the Board might eventually issue will not be moot or hollow.  In granting a Section 10(j) injunction, some circuits apply the traditional four-factor standard for temporary injunctive relief, meaning the petitioning party must show:

  • likelihood of success on the merits,
  • irreparable harm without an injunction,
  • the balance of equities favors an injunction, and
  • that temporary relief is in the public interest. 

This four-factor standard is a heavy burden and applies when evaluating most requests for temporary injunctions absent some directive from Congress to the contrary.

However, as we previously discussed, several circuits—including the Second, Fifth, Sixth, and Tenth Circuits—applied a lower standard to temporary injunctions sought under Section 10(j) of the NLRA.  Under the lower, two-part standard, the NLRB need only show:

  • “reasonable cause” to believe an unfair labor practice occurred, and
  • that injunctive relief is “just and proper.” 

This two-part standard is far easier for the Board to satisfy because it requires only a showing that the Board’s theory of the underlying unfair labor practice case is “substantial and not frivolous.”  By sharp contrast, under the traditional four-factor standard, the Board would have to show that it is “likely” to succeed on the merits of its case.  Applying this lower standard, the Board obtained a Section 10(j) injunction against Starbucks, which was affirmed by the Sixth Circuit.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the circuit split on this important issue.  The Court vacated the injunction and remanded the matter, holding that nothing in the text of the Act indicates that Section 10(j) injunctions should be analyzed under a lower standard.  The Court pointed to provisions of other laws where Congress expressly incorporated language to inform the standard that should apply to equitable relief (like an injunction) under the particular statute.  The Court observed that the NLRA itself includes such language that requires a higher standard for injunctions against strikes and lockouts.  In the absence of any such language in Section 10(j), the Court held that the traditional four-factor standard for a temporary injunction must apply.

Amazon’s Success in the Second Circuit

Just one day earlier, in a unanimous decision by a three-judge panel, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated an injunction levied against Amazon pursuant to Section 10(j).  The Second Circuit’s decision tossed the cease-and-desist order imposed by the District Court for the Eastern District of New York, which required the company to refrain from activity that violates the Act.  As we previously discussed, in November 2018, Judge Diane Gujarati partially granted a 10(j) injunction against Amazon after it fired an employee based on an alleged verbal altercation between him and a co-worker and the former employee filed an unfair labor practice charge, claiming that he was fired as a result of his union organizing activity.

While the unfair labor practice was pending, the Board petitioned the Eastern District for a Section 10(j) injunction against Amazon.  Judge Gujarati, applying the lower two-part standard, held that the evidence “amply support[ed]” the Board’s position that the employee was discharged in violation of the Act and, therefore, partially granted the injunction, requiring Amazon to cease and desist from the alleged unlawful activity.  Amazon appealed, and the Second Circuit sided with the Employer and vacated the injunction.  The Second Circuit held that Judge Gujarati abused her discretion in issuing the order by failing to adequately explain how the cease-and-desist order would protect the status quo or prevent irreparable harm under the “just and proper” analysis.

Amazon prevailed under the two-factor standard that the Second Circuit previously applied before Starbucks, but now, a court analyzing the merits of a Section 10(j) injunction must consider the four-factor test that traditionally applies to preliminary injunctions in federal court.

Takeaways

Section 10(j) injunctions have become a favored tactic of the NLRB General Counsel and the Regions which she oversees, particularly in the high-profile organizing campaigns that have hit companies like Starbucks and Amazon.  As we discussed in our February 2022 blog post, NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo announced that it was a key initiative of hers to encourage Regional Directors to seek injunctive relief under Section 10(j).

The Supreme Court’s decision in Starbucks reaffirms a heightened burden for injunctive relief under Section 10(j) uniformly across all circuits.  This effectively makes it more difficult for the NLRB to secure such injunctions during the pendency of an unfair labor practice proceeding and deals a blow to one of General Counsel Abruzzo’s major policy initiatives.  However, even before the Starbucks decision, the Second Circuit’s ruling in Amazon indicates that federal courts—including those which previously applied the lesser standard—are unwilling to issue an injunction pursuant to Section 10(j) unless supported by a detailed and well-explained rationale.

Although employers can anticipate that the NLRB will continue to seek injunctive relief under Section 10(j) pursuant to the General Counsel’s well-publicized initiative, the heightened standard and increased scrutiny will ensure that such injunctions remain the “extraordinary” remedy Congress intended them to be. 

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Joshua Fox Joshua Fox

Joshua S. Fox is a senior counsel in the Labor & Employment Law Department and a member of the Sports, Labor-Management Relations, Class and Collective Actions and Wage and Hour Groups.

As a member of the Sports Law Group, Josh has represented several…

Joshua S. Fox is a senior counsel in the Labor & Employment Law Department and a member of the Sports, Labor-Management Relations, Class and Collective Actions and Wage and Hour Groups.

As a member of the Sports Law Group, Josh has represented several Major League Baseball Clubs in all aspects of the salary arbitration process, including the Miami Marlins, Boston Red Sox, Los Angeles Dodgers, Kansas City Royals, San Francisco Giants, Tampa Bay Rays and Toronto Blue Jays. In particular, Josh successfully represented the Miami Marlins in their case against All-Star Catcher J.T. Realmuto, which was a significant club victory in salary arbitration. Josh also represents Major League Baseball and its clubs in ongoing litigation brought by current and former minor league players who allege minimum wage and overtime violations. Josh participated on the team that successfully defended Major League Baseball in a wage-and-hour lawsuit brought by a former volunteer for the 2013 All-Star FanFest, who alleged minimum wage violations under federal and state law. The lawsuit was dismissed by the federal district court, and was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Josh also has extensive experience representing professional sports leagues and teams in grievance arbitration proceedings, including playing a vital role in all aspects of the grievance challenging the suspension for use of performance-enhancing drugs of then-New York Yankees third baseman Alex Rodriguez. Josh also has counseled NHL Clubs and served on the trial teams for grievances alleging violations of the collective bargaining agreement, including cases involving use of performance-enhancing substances, domestic violence issues, and supplementary discipline for on-ice conduct. He has played a key role in representing professional sports leagues in all aspects of their collective bargaining negotiations with players and officials, including the Major League Baseball, National Hockey League, the National Football League, Major League Soccer, the Professional Referee Organization, and the National Basketball Association,.

In addition, Josh has extensive experience representing clients in the performing arts industry, including the New York City Ballet, New York City Opera, Big Apple Circus, among many others, in collective bargaining negotiations with performers and musicians, the administration of their collective bargaining agreements, and in grievance arbitrations.

Josh also represents a diverse range of clients, including real estate developers and contractors, pipe line contractors, hospitals, hotels, manufacturers and public employers, in collective bargaining, counseling on general employment matters and proceedings before the National Labor Relations Board, New York State Public Employment Relations Board and arbitrators.

Josh has also recently served as an adjunct professor at Cornell University’s School of Industrial Labor Relations for the past two years, teaching a course regarding Major League Baseball salary arbitration.

Prior to joining Proskauer, Josh worked for a year and a half at the National Hockey League, where he was involved in all labor and employment matters, including preparations for collective bargaining, grievance arbitration, contract drafting and reviewing and employment counseling. Josh also interned in the labor relations department of Major League Baseball and at Region 2 of the National Labor Relations Board. He was a member of the Brooklyn Law Review and the Appellate Moot Court Honor Society and served as president of the Brooklyn Entertainment and Sports Law Society.

Photo of Daniel H. Dorson Daniel H. Dorson

Daniel Dorson is an associate in the Labor & Employment Law Department and a member of the Labor-Management Relation Group. Daniel represents unionized and non-unionized employers in all stages of labor-management relations including union organizing campaigns, collective bargaining negotiations, contract administration, grievance arbitrations…

Daniel Dorson is an associate in the Labor & Employment Law Department and a member of the Labor-Management Relation Group. Daniel represents unionized and non-unionized employers in all stages of labor-management relations including union organizing campaigns, collective bargaining negotiations, contract administration, grievance arbitrations, work stoppages, and day-to-day labor relations issues. Daniel also represents employers in proceedings before the National Labor Relations Board including representation petitions, unfair labor practice charges, and compliance matters.

Daniel also has experience representing employers in federal court and before state and federal administrative agencies. He has defended employers against single plaintiff claims and class and collective actions alleging discrimination, harassment, and wage and hour violations.

While in law school, Daniel interned for the National Football League and the Arizona Coyotes. Prior to beginning his legal career, Daniel worked in football operations and administration for the Arizona Cardinals, Detroit Lions, Miami Dolphins, and Indianapolis Colts.

Photo of Alexander J. Blutman Alexander J. Blutman

Alexander J. Blutman is an associate in the Labor Department and a member of the Employment Litigation & Counseling Group.

Alex earned his J.D. cum laude from Harvard Law School, where he was Co-Managing Editor of the Harvard Journal of Sports & Entertainment

Alexander J. Blutman is an associate in the Labor Department and a member of the Employment Litigation & Counseling Group.

Alex earned his J.D. cum laude from Harvard Law School, where he was Co-Managing Editor of the Harvard Journal of Sports & Entertainment Law and Co-Producer of the Harvard Law School Parody. While at Harvard, Alex spent time as a legal intern with the UNLV Athletics Department, Special Olympics International, and the National Football League.

Prior to law school, Alex worked as a paralegal at an Am Law 100 law firm. He graduated from Duke University, where he served as a student-manager for the men’s basketball team.