In one of its first major decisions under its new Republican majority, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) has again rejected “setting-specific standards” for analyzing when offensive employee conduct loses the protection of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or “Act”). In Lion Elastomers LLC, 375 NLRB
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, 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.
A More Tailored Approach: Second Circuit Rejects NLRB’s Dress Code Standard
On September 2, 2026, in Siren Retail Corp., d/b/a Starbucks Reserve Roastery v. NLRB, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated and remanded the National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB” or “Board”) 2024 decision finding that Starbucks unlawfully prohibited workers at a Manhattan coffee shop from wearing…
On the Chopping Block: NLRB GC Issues Memorandum Detailing Policy Priorities
On August 26, 2026, NLRB General Counsel Crystal Carey issued Memorandum GC 26-04, following the historic trend from recent predecessors, indicating the NLRB precedent she has asked or will ask the Board to revisit. Newly appointed General Counsels often look to overturn decisions rendered by the prior administration, so…
UPDATE: CONFIRMED – Trump’s Latest NLRB Pick Could Swing Biden-Era Precedent
The Starbucks Effect: Sixth Circuit Vacates NLRB 10(j) Injunction
On May 1, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit vacated a Section 10(j) injunction issued by a district court in Kerwin v. Trinity Health Grand Haven Hospital, 174 F.4th 942 (6th Cir. 2026). In its first Section 10(j) case since the Supreme Court’s 2024…
What the Supreme Court’s Slaughter Decision Means for the NLRB
The Supreme Court’s June 29, 2026 decision in Trump v. Slaughter, No. 25-332 (2026), overruling Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), has major implications for the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”). In a 6-3 decision, Chief Justice Roberts’s majority opinion held that for-cause removal protections…
Unions Sue DOL After Being “Blindsided” By Changes to Financial Disclosure Requirements
On June 10, 2026, the AFL-CIO filed suit against the Department of Labor (“DOL”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (AFL-CIO v. Sonderling, No. 1:26-cv-02061 (D.D.C.)), challenging a final rule that imposes “sweeping changes” to the financial reporting obligations of labor organizations under the…
Faster is Not Always Better: House Passes Bill Seeking Radical Change in First Contract Bargaining
In a surprise move, on June 9, 2026, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Faster Labor Contracts Act (“FLCA”) by a vote of 230-193, sending the bill to the Senate. The legislation—passed without Republican leadership support and via a discharge petition—seeks a dramatic restructuring of the National Labor Relations…