Case 2:22-cv-12761-MAG-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.1 Filed 11/15/22 Page 1 of 34
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`
`
`ELIZABETH K. KERWIN, Regional Director
`Seventh Region of the National Labor Relations Board,
`for and on behalf of the
`NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL Case No. 2:22-CV-12761
`
`
`STARBUCKS CORPORATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respondent
`
`EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION REQUESTED
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION UNDER SECTION 10(j)
`OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED
`
`To the Honorable Judges of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
`
`Michigan:
`
`
`
`Elizabeth K. Kerwin, Regional Director of the Seventh Region of the National Labor
`
`Relations Board [Board], petitions this Court for and on behalf of the Board pursuant to Section
`
`10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended [61 Stat. 149; 73 Stat. 544; 29 U.S.C. Sec
`
`160(j)] [the Act] for appropriate injunctive relief pending the final disposition of the matters
`
`before the Board based upon the Consolidated Complaint issued by the General Counsel of the
`
`Board, alleging that Starbucks Corporation [Respondent] has engaged in, and is engaging in, acts
`
`and conduct in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. In support, Petitioner respectfully
`
`submits:
`
`1.
`
`Petitioner is the Regional Director of Region 7 of the Board, an agency of the
`
`United States, and files this petition for and on behalf of the Board.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-12761-MAG-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.2 Filed 11/15/22 Page 2 of 34
`
`2.
`
`Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to Section 10(j) of the Act. 29
`
`U.S.C. Sec 160(j).
`
`
`
`3.
`
`On April 11, 2022 and March 23, 2022, Workers United [the Union] pursuant to
`
`provisions of the Act, filed with the Board charges in Case 07-CA-293916 and 07-CA-292971,
`
`respectively, alleging that Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices
`
`within the mearing of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. Copies of the charges are attached as
`
`Exhibit 1.
`
`
`
`4.
`
`The charges were referred to Petitioner as Regional Director of the Seventh
`
`Region of the Board.
`
`
`
`5.
`
`On June 27, 2022, the General Counsel of the Board, by the Petitioner, on behalf
`
`of the Board, pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Act, issued an Order Consolidating Cases,
`
`Consolidated Complaint and Notice of Hearing in Cases 07-CA-292971 and 07-CA-293916. A
`
`copy of the Consolidated Complaint is attached as Exhibit 2.
`
`
`
`6.
`
`From August 1-4, 2022, a hearing on the allegations of the Consolidated
`
`Complaint was held in Detroit, Michigan before Administrative Law Judge Geoffrey Carter.
`
`
`
`7.
`
`On October 7, 2022, Administrative Law Judge Carter issued his Decision on the
`
`allegations of the Consolidated Complaint. In his Decision, Administrative Law Judge Carter
`
`concluded that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging its
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-12761-MAG-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.3 Filed 11/15/22 Page 3 of 34
`
`employee Hannah Whitbeck because she engaged in union and protected concerted activities. A
`
`copy of the Administrative Law Judge’s Decision is attached as Exhibit 3.
`
`
`
`8.
`
`There is reasonable cause to believe that the allegations in the Consolidated
`
`Complaint are true and that Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices
`
`within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act and affecting commerce within the
`
`meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
`
`
`
`9.
`
`that:
`
`In support of this Petition, based on information and belief, the Petitioner states
`
`
`
`
`
`a.
`
`At all material times, Respondent has been a corporation with an office
`
`and place of business in Seattle, Washington and various locations throughout the United States
`
`including a store located at 300 South Main Street, Ann Arbor, Michigan (Ann Arbor store) and
`
`has been engaged in operating public restaurants selling food and beverages.
`
`b.
`
`In conducting its operations during the calendar year ending December 31,
`
`2021, Respondent derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000.
`
`c.
`
`In conducting it operations during the calendar year ending December 31,
`
`2021, Respondent purchased and received at its Ann Arbor store products, goods, and materials
`
`valued in excess of $5,000 directly from points outside the State of Michigan.
`
`d.
`
`At all material times, Respondent has been an employer engaged in
`
`commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
`
`e.
`
`At all material times, the Union has been a labor organization within the
`
`meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-12761-MAG-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.4 Filed 11/15/22 Page 4 of 34
`
`f.
`
`At all material times, the following individuals held the positions set forth
`
`opposite their respective names and have been supervisors of Respondent within the meaning of
`
`Section 2(11) of the Act and agents of Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the
`
`Act:
`
`Robert Prince
`
`Store Manager
`
`May Gonzalez
`
`Store Manager
`
`Erin Lind
`
`
`
`Store Manager
`
`Brigette Jackson
`
`Regional Director Area 31
`
`Tina Serrano
`
`
`
`Regional Vice President
`
`Kevin Johnson
`
`Former President and CEO
`
`Howard Schultz
`
`President and CEO
`
`10.
`
`In support of the Petition, based on information and belief, the Petitioner further
`
`states that:
`
`Whitbeck.
`
`a.
`
`About April 11, 2022, Respondent discharged its employee, Hannah
`
`
`
`
`
`b.
`
`Respondent engaged in the conduct described in paragraph 9(a) because
`
`Hannah Whitbeck was the leading organizer for the Union at Respondent’s Ann Arbor store, she
`
`assisted and supported the Union and engaged in protected concerted activities, and to
`
`discourage its employees from engaging in these activities.
`
`
`
`11.
`
`By the conduct described in paragraph 9, Respondent has been discriminating in
`
`regard to the hire or tenure or terms and conditions of employment of its employees to
`
`discourage membership in a labor organization in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-12761-MAG-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.5 Filed 11/15/22 Page 5 of 34
`
`
`
`
`
`12.
`
`The unfair labor practices of Respondent described above affect commerce within
`
`the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
`
`
`
`
`
`13.
`
`Upon information and belief, it may be fairly anticipated that, unless enjoined,
`
`Respondent will continue to engage in the conduct set forth in paragraph 9, or similar acts, in
`
`violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
`
`
`
`14.
`
`Upon information and belief, unless the continuation of the aforementioned unfair
`
`labor practices is immediately restrained, a serious abrogation of the rights guaranteed and the
`
`underlying public policies served by the Act will continue. As a result, the enforcement of
`
`important provisions of the Act and of public policy will be impaired before Respondent can be
`
`placed under legal restraint through the regular procedures of a Board order and enforcement
`
`decree. Unless injunctive relief is immediately obtained, it is anticipated that Respondent will
`
`continue its unlawful conduct during the proceedings before the Board and during subsequent
`
`proceedings before a Court of Appeals for an enforcement decree, with the result that employees
`
`will continue to be deprived of their fundamental right to organize for the purpose of collective
`
`bargaining, as guaranteed in the Act.
`
`
`
`15.
`
`Upon information and belief, to avoid the serious consequences set forth above, it
`
`is essential, appropriate, just and proper, for the purposes of effectuating the polices of the Act
`
`and avoiding substantial, irreparable, and immediate injury to such policies, to the public
`
`interest, and to employees of Respondent, and in accordance with the purposes of Section 10(j)
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-12761-MAG-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.6 Filed 11/15/22 Page 6 of 34
`
`of the Act, that, pending the final disposition of the matters involved here pending before the
`
`Board, Respondent be enjoined and restrained from the commission of the acts and conduct
`
`alleged above, similar or related acts or conduct or repetitions thereof.
`
`
`
`16.
`
`No previous application has been made for the relief requested herein.
`
`
`
`17.
`
`Pursuant to the District Court’s Local Rule 7.1, on November 2, 2022, Petitioner,
`
`through counsel, explained the nature of its Petition to Respondent’s counsel and its legal basis
`
`and requested, but did not obtain, concurrence in the relief sought. A copy of the affidavit stating
`
`such is attached as Exhibit 4.
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Petitioner seeks the following relief:
`
`1.
`
`That the Court issue an order directing Respondent to appear before this Court, at
`
`a time and place fixed by the Court, and show cause, if any there be, why an injunction should
`
`not issue enjoining and restraining Respondent, its officers, representatives, agents, employees,
`
`attorneys, and all persons acting in concert or participation with them, pending final disposition
`
`of the matters involved here pending before the Board from:
`
`a.
`
`discharging employees at any of its stores in the United States and its
`
`territories for supporting the Union or any other labor organization; and
`
`b.
`
` in any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
`
`employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them under Section 7 of the Act at any of
`
`Respondent’s stores in the United States and its territories.
`
` c. That the Court issue an affirmative order directing Respondent, its
`
`officers, representatives, agents, employees, attorneys, and all persons acting in concert or
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-12761-MAG-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.7 Filed 11/15/22 Page 7 of 34
`
`participation with it, pending final disposition of the matters involved herein pending before the
`
`Board, to within five (5) days of the issuance of the District Court’s order, offer, in writing, to
`
`Hannah Whitbeck, interim reinstatement to her former position, or if that position no longer
`
`exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or any other rights
`
`and privileges previously enjoyed, displacing, if necessary, any employee hired or reassigned to
`
`replace her;
`
`Within five (5) days of the District Court’s Order, the Respondent shall:
`
`d.
`
`
`post physical copies of the District Court’s Order at all of
`i.
`Respondent’s stores in the United States and its territories, as well as translations
`in other languages as necessary to ensure effective communication to
`Respondent’s employees as determined by the Petitioner, said translations to be
`provided by Respondent at Respondent’s expense and approved by the Petitioner,
`on the bulletin board, in all breakrooms, and in all other places where the
`Respondent typically posts notices to its employees at each of its stores; maintain
`these postings during the pendency of the Board’s administrative proceedings free
`from all obstructions and defacements; grant all employees free and unrestricted
`access to said postings; and grant to agents of the Board reasonable access to its
`worksite to monitor compliance with this posting requirement;
`
`distribute electronic copies of the District Court’s Order, as well as
`ii.
`translations in other languages as necessary to ensure effective communication to
`Respondent’s employees as determined by the Petitioner, said translations to be
`provided by Respondent at Respondent’s expense and approved by the Petitioner,
`to all employees employed by Respondent in the United States and its Territories
`via the Partner Hub, and all other intranet or internet sites or apps that Respondent
`uses to communicate with employees;
`
`convene one or more mandatory meetings, on working time and at
`iii.
`times when Respondent customarily holds employee meetings and scheduled to
`ensure the widest possible attendance, at Respondent’s Main Street, Ann Arbor,
`Michigan store, during which the District Court’s Order will be read to the
`bargaining unit employees by a responsible Respondent official in the presence of
`a Board agent, or at Respondent’s option, by an agent of the Board in English.
`Respondent shall also afford the Union, through the Petitioner, reasonable notice
`and opportunity to have a representative present when the Order is read to
`employees. Interpreters shall be made available for any individual whose
`language of fluency is other than English at Respondent’s expense. Respondent
`shall announce the meeting(s) for the Order reading in the same manner it would
`customarily announce a meeting to employees; the meeting(s) shall be for the
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-12761-MAG-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.8 Filed 11/15/22 Page 8 of 34
`
`above-stated purpose only. Individuals unable to attend the meeting to which they
`have been assigned will be able to attend a subsequent meeting during which the
`same reading shall take place under the same conditions. Respondent shall allow
`all employees to attend these meetings without penalty or adverse employment
`consequences, either financial or otherwise;
`
`distribute electronic copies of a high-level Respondent official (in
`iv.
`the presence of a Board agent) or a Board agent (in the presence of a high-level
`Respondent official) reading the District Court’s Order, on its Partner Hub and all
`other intranet or internet sites or apps that Respondent uses to communicate with
`employees, such that the video can be accessed by employees at all of its stores in
`the United States and its Territories.
`
`e)
`
`Within twenty one (21) days of the issuance of the District Court’s order,
`
`
`
`
`
`file with the Court, with a copy submitted to the Petitioner, a sworn affidavit from a responsible
`
`official of Respondent describing with specificity the manner in which Respondent has complied
`
`with the terms of this Court’s order, including how and where the documents have been posted,
`
`and the date(s), time(s), and location(s) that the order was read to employees and by whom.
`
`f) That the Court grant such other and further relief as may be just and proper.
`
`
`
`Dated this 15th day of November, 2022 in Detroit, Michigan.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Elizabeth K. Kerwin
`Elizabeth K. Kerwin
`Regional Director
`National Labor Relations Board, Region 7
`Patrick V. McNamara Building
`477 Michigan Avenue, Room 05-200
`Detroit, MI 48226
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ERIKSON C. N. KARMOL,
`
`Regional Attorney,
`Region Seven
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-12761-MAG-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.9 Filed 11/15/22 Page 9 of 34
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Patricia A. Fedewa
`Counsel for Petitioner
`National Labor Relations Board, Region 7
`Patrick V. McNamara Building
`477 Michigan Avenue, Room 05-200
`Detroit, MI 48226
`Telephone: (313)335-8053
`E-Mail: patricia.fedewa@nlrb.gov
`Bar No. P51964
`
`
`
`COLLEEN J. CAROL,
`
`Resident Officer,
`
`Region Seven
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-12761-MAG-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.10 Filed 11/15/22 Page 10 of 34
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`
`
`ELIZABETH K. KERWIN, Regional Director
`For the Seventh Region of the National Labor Relations Board,
`for and on behalf of the
`NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL Case No. 2:22-CV-12761
`
`
`STARBUCKS CORPORATION
`
`
`
`Respondent
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`
`I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`
`
`This case involves Starbucks Corporation’s unlawful campaign to defeat its employees
`
`right protected by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act to form or join a union. In
`
`response to the organizing efforts of courageous employees at a Starbucks store in Ann Arbor,
`
`Michigan, and the ongoing nationwide organizing drive, Starbucks retaliated harshly by firing
`
`Hannah Whitbeck (Whitbeck), the lead organizer at the 300 S. Main Street store in Ann Arbor,
`
`Michigan, for Workers United (the Union). Without a preliminary injunction pursuant to §10(j)
`
`of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 160(j), pending final administrative resolution
`
`of the case by the National Labor Relations Board, including the immediate reinstatement of
`
`Whitbeck, Starbucks will achieve its unlawful goals of purging the Ann Arbor store of the
`
`Union’s leadership and crushing employee activism in Michigan and nationwide. In the process,
`
`Starbucks will irreparably harm the statutory rights of its employees, frustrating the Board’s
`
`remedial power, and thwarting the intent of Congress.
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-12761-MAG-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.11 Filed 11/15/22 Page 11 of 34
`
`II.
`
`PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`
`As set forth fully in the Petition for Preliminary Injunction, the Union filed charges with
`
`the Board alleging that Starbucks has engaged in unfair labor practices, including the unlawful
`
`termination of Whitbeck. [Exh. 1]. After a thorough investigation of the charges and full
`
`consideration of Starbucks’ proffered evidence, the Petitioner determined there was reasonable
`
`cause to believe Starbucks has violated the Act. The Petitioner issued a Consolidated Complaint
`
`and Notice of Hearing on June 27, 2022.1 [Exh. 2].
`
`From August 1-4, a hearing on the allegations of the Consolidated Complaint was held in
`
`Detroit, Michigan before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Geoffrey Carter. On October 7, ALJ
`
`Carter issued a Decision on the allegations of the Consolidated Complaint. [Exh. 3]. In his
`
`Decision, ALJ Carter concluded that Starbucks violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by
`
`discharging Whitbeck because she engaged in union and protected concerted activities [Exh. 3 at
`
`31].
`
`On October 27, Starbucks advised representatives of the Petitioner that it would not
`
`comply with ALJ Carter’s Decision because it intends to file exceptions to the Decision with the
`
`Board in Washington D.C., pursuant to Section 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations.
`
`
`
`III. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
`
`A. Whitbeck Begins Organizing a Union at an Ann Arbor Starbucks
`
`Starbucks is the world’s largest coffeehouse chain, operating approximately 9,000 stores
`
`nationwide, including 283 stores in Michigan. In 2021, the Union commenced an
`
`
`1 All references are to 2022, unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-12761-MAG-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.12 Filed 11/15/22 Page 12 of 34
`
`unprecedented, highly publicized campaign to organize Starbucks employees across the country.
`
`In January, Whitbeck, an employee at Starbucks’ 300 S. Main Street, Ann Arbor, Michigan store
`
`(the Main Street store) decided to join the campaign. Whitbeck contacted the Union and initiated
`
`the organizing campaign at the Main Street store. [Exh. 3 at 6]. She openly expressed her
`
`support for the Union wearing a button at work every day that said: “Starbucks Workers United.”
`
`[Exh. 3 at 78]. Whitbeck also spoke with her co-workers about the Union and provided them
`
`with information and literature. [Exh. 3 at 6].
`
`On February 4, Whitbeck sent a letter from her personal e-mail address to Starbucks
`
`then-President and CEO Kevin Johnson. [Exh. 3 at 6]. The letter described the nationwide
`
`organizing effort and explained that a majority of the approximately 20 employees at the Main
`
`Street store supported the Union and were requesting that Starbucks recognize the Union as the
`
`employees’ collective bargaining representative. [Exh. 3 at 6 ]. Starbucks did not respond to
`
`Whitbeck’s e-mail [Exh 3 at 6].
`
`B. Whitbeck Becomes the Face of the Michigan Campaign at Board Hearings and
`in the Media
`
`Having received no response to their request for recognition, on February 8, the Union
`
`filed a petition with the Board on behalf of the employees at the Main Street store asking the
`
`Board to conduct a representation election (NLRB Representation Case 07-RC-290295). [Exh. 3
`
`at 7]. Around the same time, the Union also filed election petitions at four additional Starbucks
`
`stores in Ann Arbor. [Exh. 3 at 7]. While the Main Street store petition was pending, Whitbeck
`
`continued to advocate for the Union. [Exh 3 at 8, 16]. On February 11, she posted a photograph
`
`on Instagram expressing her support for seven employees that had been discharged from a
`
`Starbucks store in Memphis, Tennessee during the Union’s organizing campaign there. [Exh.3 at
`
`8].
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-12761-MAG-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.13 Filed 11/15/22 Page 13 of 34
`
`On March 2-4, an NLRB pre-election hearing was held in multiple representation cases,
`
`including Case 07-RC-290295, the representation case for the Main Street store. [Exh. 3 at 15].
`
`At the hearing, Starbucks challenged the Main Street store petition as well as additional petitions
`
`filed for other Starbucks locations in Michigan. [Exh. 3 at 15]. Whitbeck appeared at the
`
`hearing and her picture and name were visible during the entire hearing, which was also attended
`
`by Starbucks management officials, including Whitbeck’s District Manager, Paige Schmehl.
`
`[Exh. 3 at 15].
`
`Following the hearing, Whitbeck continued to openly support the Union. [Exh 3 at 16].
`
`In this regard, on March 9, she wrote “Brewing Solidarity” on the public message chalkboard at
`
`the Main Street store to allow employees and customers to post messages of support for the
`
`Union’s organizing drive.[Exh. 3 at 16]. A couple of days later, the Brewing Solidarity heading
`
`and notes were removed from the community board. [Exh 3 at 16-17].
`
`On April 7, media outlet MLive published an article on the Union’s organizing campaign
`
`at Starbucks, reporting that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners unanimously
`
`passed a resolution in support of employees’ organizing efforts in Michigan. [Exh. 3 at 21].
`
`The article quoted Whitbeck several times, including this statement: “At least five area stores …
`
`are currently seeking to form unions, Whitbeck said, adding that working conditions and
`
`exposure to the public during the COVID-19 pandemic without consistent hazard pay have been
`
`‘unacceptable’ and are part of what is driving the unionization push.” [Exh 3 at 21].
`
`C. Starbucks Discharges Whitbeck Shortly After Her Campaign Gains Publicity
`
`On April 11, a few days after the article was published, Whitbeck was working at the
`
`Main Street store when she was called into a meeting with new Store Manager May Gonzales
`
`and manager Erin Lind. When Whitbeck arrived at the meeting, Lind handed her a discharge
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-12761-MAG-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.14 Filed 11/15/22 Page 14 of 34
`
`notice and told Whitbeck she was fired. [Exh. 3 at 22]. The discharge notice stated that
`
`Starbucks was terminating Whitbeck’s employment after three years2 for leaving a single
`
`employee (a barista) alone at the Main Street store at the end of her shift without attempting to
`
`contact the store manager or other shift supervisor. [Exh. 3 at 22].
`
`Whitbeck was stunned. Indeed, in determining that Whitbeck’s discharge violated
`
`Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, the ALJ relied upon the following. First,
`
`District Manager Paige Schmehl attended a “Sip-In” in support of the area campaigns for three
`
`hours and monitored what individuals were posting on the community board located at the Ann
`
`Arbor Zeeb Road store. The ALJ noted that this supported a finding of animus. Second,
`
`Starbucks’ “job aid” provided that a final written warning, as opposed to discharge, is Starbucks’
`
`customary discipline for violating the “two-employee rule.” [Exh. 3 at page 28] In this regard,
`
`another employee was issued a final written warning for violating the “two-employee rule” and
`
`putting hands on a coworker while Whitbeck was immediately discharged solely for violating the
`
`“two-employee rule.” [Exh. 3 at 228-29]. Second, Starbucks deviated from its usual
`
`investigation practices when it failed to ask Whitbeck why she left the store and failed to
`
`consider that Starbucks scheduled her to leave when another employee’s meal break overlapped
`
`with the end of her shift. (Exh. 3 at 29) Third, Starbucks decided to discharge Whitbeck during
`
`an active and ongoing organizing campaign. (Exh. 3 at 30)
`
`D. Whitbeck’s Discharge is Reported Nationally and Decapitates the Union Locally
`
`Whitbeck’s discharge was widely reported, locally as well as nationally, in multiple news
`
`sources and on social media.3 Despite being subject to a threat of termination, on June 15, the
`
`
`2 Whitbeck was hired in April 2019. [Exh. 3 at 6]
`3 See, e.g., Paul Blest, Starbucks Just Fired Yet Another Union Organizer, VICE News (Apr. 12, 2022),
`https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7vn8b/starbucks-fired-union-organizer/; Jonah Furman, Retaliation Can’t Stop
`Growing Starbucks Union, Labor Notes, (Apr. 22, 2022), https://labornotes.org/blogs/2022/04/retaliation-cant-stop-
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-12761-MAG-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.15 Filed 11/15/22 Page 15 of 34
`
`employees at the Main Street store bravely voted to be represented by the Union, and thereafter,
`
`the Board certified the Union as the collective bargaining representative of the Main Street store
`
`employees. [Exh. 4]. However, with Whitbeck’s discharge the Union lost its principal advocate
`
`at the store, and after some employee turnover the Union had a difficult time even finding out
`
`who the new workers were, let alone getting them involved in bargaining. [Exh 5] The Union
`
`was only able to recruit an employee to join the bargaining committee when Whitbeck kindly
`
`came back to help out at a store at which she no longer works. [Exh 5]
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARD FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Section 10(j) of the Act,4 authorizes United States district courts to grant temporary
`
`injunctions pending the Board’s resolution of unfair labor practice proceedings. Congress
`
`recognized that the Board’s administrative proceedings often are protracted. In many instances,
`
`absent interim relief, an employer could accomplish its unlawful objective before being placed
`
`under any legal restraint, and it could thereby render a final Board order ineffectual. See Schaub
`
`v. West Michigan Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 250 F.3d 962, 970 (6th Cir. 2001); Levine v. C & W
`
`Mining Co., Inc., 610 F.2d 432, 436-437 (6th Cir. 1979) (quoting S. Rep. No. 105, 80th Cong.,
`
`1st Sess., 27 (1947), reprinted in I Legislative History of the Labor Management Relations Act of
`
`
`growing-starbucks-union; Abby Ellinor, Starbucks Under Scrutiny for Firing Union Workers, Her Campus (Apr. 19,
`2022), https://www.hercampus.com/school/fsu/961845/; Erica Murphy, Starbucks Workers in East Lansing and
`Lansing Township Voted to Unionize This Week, Fox47 News (June 10, 2022),
`https://www.fox47news.com/neighborhoods/downtown-old-town-reo-town/some-michigan-starbucks-workers-
`voted-to-unionize-this-week/; Lindsay Moore, ‘I Wanted to Make This Job Worth Having:’ Michigan Starbucks
`Workers Join the Union Fight, MLive (June 12, 2022), https://www.mlive.com/public-interest/2022/06/i-wanted-to-
`make-this-job-worth-having-michigan-starbucks-workers-join-the-union-fight.html/.
`4 Section 10(j) (29 U.S.C. § 160(j)) provides:
`The Board shall have power, upon issuance of a complaint as provided in subsection (b) charging that any person
`has engaged in or is engaging in an unfair labor practice, to petition any United States district court, within any
`district wherein the unfair labor practice in question is alleged to have occurred or wherein such person resides or
`transacts business, for appropriate temporary relief or restraining order. Upon the filing of any such petition the
`court shall cause notice thereof to be served upon such person, and thereupon shall have jurisdiction to grant to the
`Board such temporary relief or restraining order as it deems just and proper.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-12761-MAG-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.16 Filed 11/15/22 Page 16 of 34
`
`1947 433 (Government Printing Office 1985)). Accord: Fleischut v. Nixon Detroit Diesel, Inc.,
`
`859 F.2d 26, 28-29 (6th Cir. 1988). Thus, Section 10(j) was intended to prevent the potential
`
`frustration or nullification of the Board’s remedial authority caused by the passage of time
`
`inherent in Board administrative litigation. See Kobell v. United Paperworkers Int’l. Union, 965
`
`F.2d 1401, 1406 (6th Cir. 1992).
`
`
`
`To resolve a Section 10(j) petition, a district court in the Sixth Circuit considers only two
`
`issues: whether there is “reasonable cause to believe” that a respondent has violated the Act and
`
`whether temporary injunctive relief is “just and proper.” See Ahearn v. Jackson Hosp. Corp.,
`
`351 F.3d 226, 234-235 (6th Cir. 2003); Schaub, 250 F.3d at 969; Gottfried v. Frankel, 818 F.2d
`
`485, 493 (6th Cir. 1987); Glasser v. ADT Sec. Sys., Inc., 379 F. App’x 483, 485, n.2 (6th Cir.
`
`2010). Accord: Chester v. Grane Healthcare Co., 666 F.3d 87, 94-100 (3d Cir. 2011);
`
`Overstreet v. El Paso Disposal, L.P., 625 F.3d 844, 850-851, 854 (5th Cir. 2010).
`
`
`
`
`
`A. The “Reasonable Cause” Standard
`
`The Regional Director bears a “relatively insubstantial” burden in establishing
`
`“reasonable cause.” McKinney v. Ozburn-Hessey Logistics, LLC, 875 F.3d 333, 339 (6th Cir.
`
`2017) (quoting Ahearn, 351 F.3d at 237). In determining whether there is reasonable cause to
`
`believe that the Act has been violated, a district court may not decide the merits of the case. Id.
`
`See also Schaub, 250 F.3d at 969; Gottfried, 818 F.2d at 493. Accord: Chester, 666 F.3d at 100.
`
`Instead, the Regional Director’s burden in proving “reasonable cause” is “relatively
`
`insubstantial.” See Schaub, 250 F.3d at 969; Kobell, 965 F.2d at 1406; Levine v. C & W Mining
`
`Co., Inc., 610 F.2d 432, 435 (6th Cir. 1979). Thus, the district court must accept the Regional
`
`Director’s legal theory as long as it is “substantial and not frivolous.” McKinney, 875 F.3d at
`
`339; Ahearn, 351 F.3d at 237; Fleischut, 859 F.2d at 29; Kobell, 965 F.2d 1407. Accord:
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-12761-MAG-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.17 Filed 11/15/22 Page 17 of 34
`
`Chester, 666 F.3d at 101; Overstreet, 625 F.3d at 850, 855. Factually, the Regional Director
`
`need only “produce some evidence in support of the petition.” Kobell, 965 F.2d at 1407. The
`
`district court should not resolve conflicts in the evidence or issues of credibility of witnesses, but
`
`should accept the Regional Director’s version of events as long as facts exist which could
`
`support the Board's theory of liability. See Ahearn; Schaub, 250 F.3d at 969; Gottfried, 818 F.2d
`
`at 493, 494.
`
`
`
`
`
`B. The “Just and Proper” Standard
`
`Injunctive relief is “just and proper” under Section 10(j) where it is “necessary to return
`
`the parties to the status quo pending the Board’s processes in order to protect the Board’s
`
`remedial powers under the NLRA.” Kobell, 965 F.2d at 1410 (quoting Gottfried, 818 F.2d at
`
`495).5 Accord: Schaub, 250 F.3d at 970. Thus, “[i]nterim relief is warranted whenever the
`
`circumstances of a case create a reasonable apprehension that the efficacy of the Board’s final
`
`order may be nullified or the administrative procedures will be rendered meaningless.” Sheeran
`
`v. American Commercial Lines, Inc., 683 F.2d 970, 979 (6th Cir. 1982) (quoting Angle v. Sacks,
`
`382 F.2d 655, 660 (10th Cir. 1967)). Accord: Ahearn, 351 F.3d at 239; Fleischut, 859 F.2d at
`
`30-31; Chester, 666 F.3d at 102.
`
`V. APPLICATION OF LEGAL STANDARD TO THE FACTS
`
`A. There is Strong Cause to Believe Starbucks Discharged Activist Whitbeck in
`Retaliation for Her Union Activity in Violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act
`
`In this case, the reasonable cause standard is easily met. Following four days of hearing
`
`
`
`and extensive briefing by the parties, ALJ Carter concluded, based on a preponderance of the
`
`evidence, that Starbucks discharged Whitbeck in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. Many
`
`
`5 The “status quo” referred to in Gottfried v. Frankel is that which existed before the charged unfair labor
`practices took place. See Fleischut, 859 F.2d at 30 n.3.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-12761-MAG-EAS ECF