A university may be gearing up to challenge the Columbia standard, which held that graduate student teaching and research assistants may qualify as employees under the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”) and therefore can unionize.

On September 14, 2026, Stanford University filed an emergency motion to stay an election challenging a National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) Regional Director’s (“RD”) application of the Columbia framework. The RD determined that undergraduate residential student leaders (“RSLs”) could vote on whether they wanted to be represented by a union.  While the NLRB is permitting the election to proceed, it invited Stanford to file a Request for Review on whether the NLRB should decline jurisdiction.

Background

Though Section 2(3) of the Act defines “employee” in broad terms, it does not explicitly address whether students performing teaching and research services at private universities in exchange for stipends are included. Since the 1970s, the NLRB has issued multiple decisions addressing the scope of “employee” to determine whether student teaching and research assistants qualify under the Act.

In Adelphi University, 195 NLRB 639, 640 (1972), the NLRB found graduate students serving as teaching and research assistants were “primarily students,” not “employees.” The NLRB subsequently reversed itself three times: first in New York University, 332 NLRB 1205 (2000) (graduate teaching and research assistants were “employees”); next in Brown University, 342 NLRB 483 (2004) (the relationship between student assistants and their universities was “primarily educational” rather than economic). Most recently, in Columbia University, 364 NLRB 1080 (2016), the NLRB reversed Brown and held that graduate student assistants who perform services, including teaching and research, in connection with their studies in exchange for compensation are employees under the Act.

While the NLRB proposed a rule in 2019 that would have excluded student assistants from the Act’s coverage, the NLRB withdrew that proposed rule in 2021, leaving Columbia intact.

Stanford’s Challenge

On May 10, 2026, Residential Assistants United Rising (“RAUR”) filed a petition with the NLRB seeking to represent approximately 450 undergraduate RSLs (i.e., Resident Assistants) in Stanford’s undergraduate housing. Stanford challenged the petition, contending that RSLs are not statutory employees and that, even if they were, the Board should decline jurisdiction due to conflicts with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”) and the First Amendment.

On September 11, 2026, after a three-day hearing, the RD issued a Decision and Direction of Election (“DDE”) finding that Stanford’s RSLs are statutory employees under Columbia. The RD reasoned that since Columbia was decided, “bargaining units of students who perform services for their college or university have been certified under the Columbia University test.” The RD also declined to overturn Columbia, noting she was “obligated to apply Board precedent.”

Three days later, Stanford filed an emergency motion to stay the election and voter list submission. Stanford’s primary argument was that promptly producing a voter list containing student information conflicts with FERPA, which restricts disclosure of student records without notice and a reasonable opportunity to object. Notably, in Vanderbilt University v. NLRB, 759 F.Supp.3d 812 (M.D. Tenn. 2024), a federal district court granted Vanderbilt’s motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining NLRB regulations concerning the production of information that conflicted with FERPA.

Stanford’s motion also previewed four grounds for the university’s likely forthcoming request for review—making clear that Stanford is seeking to overturn Columbia:

• Columbia is distinguishable because RSLs are undergraduate peer leaders, not graduate teaching and research assistants;
• to the extent Columbia applies, it was wrongly decided and should be overruled;
• even if RSLs are statutory employees, the Board should decline jurisdiction given their short terms; and
• exercising jurisdiction would impermissibly interfere with academic freedom in violation of the First Amendment.

The NLRB’s Decision

The NLRB acted quickly, issuing a decision on Stanford’s emergency motion on September 29, 2026. While permitting the election to move forward, the NLRB ruled that Stanford was under no obligation to produce “non-public information regarding a student who has filed an objection to the subpoena under FERPA….” Further, in a footnote, the NLRB made clear its ruling was without prejudice to Stanford’s “right to raise the other issues mentioned in its motion, including the request that the Board decline to assert jurisdiction in this case, in a timely-filed Request for Review.”

Takeaways

Stanford appears poised to challenge Columbia before the NLRB and could pursue the challenge to a court of appeals or the Supreme Court. By specifically identifying Stanford’s right to “request that the Board decline to assert jurisdiction in this case,” the NLRB may be inviting that challenge. Notably, with a newly confirmed third Republican on the NLRB, the Board is now positioned to revisit Biden and Obama-era precedents. Columbia may be in its crosshairs. 

When faced with similar threats to students’ employee status, coinciding with new Republican administrations in 2017-2018 and 2024-2025, many university labor organizations have withdrawn pending representation petitions to save Columbia.  It remains to be seen whether RAUR follows suit here.

We will continue to monitor this case and its implications for the Columbia standard that set off an organizing wave at universities, and we are here to assist any universities facing graduate student, postdoc, or other unionization drives.