`
`No.
`
`
`In the Supreme Court of the United States
`
`
`STARBUCKS CORPORATION,
`PETITIONER,
`
`v.
`
`M. KATHLEEN MCKINNEY, REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF
`REGION 15 OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
`FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE
`NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
`RESPONDENT.
`
`
`ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
`
`
`PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`
`
`
`LISA S. BLATT
`Counsel of Record
`SARAH M. HARRIS
`AARON Z. ROPER
`EDWARD L. PICKUP*
`WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
`680 Maine Avenue SW
`Washington, DC 20024
`(202) 434-5000
`lblatt@wc.com
`
`
`
`
`ARTHUR T. CARTER
`LITTLER MENDELSON
`2001 Ross Avenue
`Suite 1500
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`
`ALFRED JOHN HARPER, III
`LITTLER MENDELSON
`1301 McKinney Street
`Suite 1900
`Houston, TX 77010
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`*Admitted in Maryland and practicing law in the District of Columbia
`pending application for admission to the D.C. Bar under the supervi-
`sion of bar members pursuant to D.C. Court of Appeals Rule 49(c)(8).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`QUESTION PRESENTED
`Under the National Labor Relations Act, the Na-
`tional Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issues, prosecutes,
`and adjudicates complaints alleging that employers com-
`mitted unfair labor practices. 29 U.S.C. § 160(b). Section
`10(j) of the Act authorizes federal district courts, while the
`NLRB adjudication remains pending, to grant prelimi-
`nary injunctive relief at the NLRB’s request “as [the
`court] deems just and proper.” Id. § 160(j).
`The question presented, on which the courts of ap-
`peals are openly and squarely divided, is:
`Whether courts must evaluate the NLRB’s requests
`for section 10(j) injunctions under the traditional, strin-
`gent four-factor test for preliminary injunctions or under
`some other more lenient standard.
`
`
`
`(I)
`
`
`
`
`
`II
`
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
`Petitioner Starbucks Corporation has no parent cor-
`poration, and no publicly held company owns 10% or more
`of its stock.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`III
`
`STATEMENT OF RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`This case arises from the following proceedings:
` McKinney, Regional Director of Region 15 of
`the National Labor Relations Board, for and
`on behalf of the National Labor Relations
`Board v. Starbucks Corp., No. 22-5730 (6th
`Cir. Aug. 8, 2023) (affirming grant of prelimi-
`nary injunction)
` McKinney, Regional Director of Region 15 of
`the National Labor Relations Board, for and
`on behalf of the National Labor Relations
`Board v. Starbucks Corp., No. 2:22-cv-2292-
`SHL-cgc (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 18, 2022) (granting
`preliminary injunction)
`There are no other proceedings in state or federal
`trial or appellate courts, or in this Court, directly related
`to this case within the meaning of this Court’s Rule
`14.1(b)(iii).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IV
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`OPINIONS BELOW ............................................................ 1
`JURISDICTION ................................................................... 2
`STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ..................... 2
`STATEMENT ....................................................................... 2
`A.
`Statutory Background ........................................ 6
`B.
`Factual Background ........................................... 7
`C.
`Administrative and Judicial Proceedings ...... 10
`REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION .......... 14
`I.
`The Circuits Are Squarely Divided Over the
`Standard for Section 10(j) Injunctions ................. 15
`The Question Presented Is Recurring,
` Important, and Squarely Presented .................... 22
`III. The Decision Below Is Wrong ............................... 30
`CONCLUSION ................................................................... 32
`
`
`
`
`II.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`V
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Cases:
`Ahearn v. Jackson Hosp. Corp.,
`351 F.3d 226 (6th Cir. 2003) ................................... 11, 18
`Angle v. Sacks, 382 F.2d 655 (10th Cir. 1967) .................. 27
`Arlook v. S. Lichtenberg & Co.,
`952 F.2d 367 (11th Cir. 1992) ....................................... 19
`Bloedorn v. Francisco Foods, Inc.,
`276 F.3d 270 (7th Cir. 2001) ......................................... 16
`Boire v. Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc.,
`515 F.2d 1185 (5th Cir. 1975) ....................................... 18
`Chester v. Grane Healthcare Co.,
`666 F.3d 87 (3d Cir. 2011) ........................... 17, 18, 21, 22
`Cowen v. Mason-Dixon Int’l,
`2021 WL 3852184 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2021) .............. 26
`Diaz v. Hartman & Tyner, Inc.,
`2012 WL 2513485 (S.D. Fla. June 29, 2012) ............... 27
`eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC,
`547 U.S. 388 (2006) ........................................................ 30
`Eisenberg v. Wellington Hall Nursing Home,
`Inc., 651 F.2d 902 (3d Cir. 1981) .................................. 27
`Glacier Nw., Inc. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters,
`598 U.S. 771 (2023) .......................................................... 6
`Glasser v. ADT Sec. Servs.,
`379 F. App’x 483 (6th Cir. 2010) .................................. 21
`Gottfried v. Frankel, 818 F.2d 485 (6th Cir. 1987) .... 18, 19
`Hadsall v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.,
`993 F.3d 992 (7th Cir. 2021) ........................................... 7
`Henderson v. Bluefield Hosp. Co.,
`902 F.3d 432 (4th Cir. 2018) ................................... 16, 26
`Henderson v. Bluefield Hosp. Co.,
`208 F. Supp. 3d 763 (S.D.W. Va. 2016) ....................... 26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VI
`
`Page
`
`Cases—continued:
`Hirsch v. Dorsey Trailers, Inc.,
`147 F.3d 243 (3d Cir. 1998) ........................................... 24
`Hoffman v. Inn Credible Caterers, Ltd.,
`247 F.3d 360 (2d Cir. 2001) ..................................... 20, 21
`Hooks v. Nexstar Broad., Inc.,
`54 F.4th 1101 (9th Cir. 2022) .................................. 17, 26
`Hooks v. Ozburn-Hessey Logistics, LLC,
`775 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (W.D. Tenn. 2011) .................... 27
`Kerwin v. Starbucks Corp., 2023 WL 2186563
`(E.D. Mich. Feb. 23, 2023) .................................. 5, 25, 29
`Kinard v. Dish Network Corp.,
`890 F.3d 608 (5th Cir. 2018) ......................................... 18
`Kinney v. Pioneer Press,
`881 F.2d 485 (7th Cir. 1989) ........... 16, 21, 22, 24, 30, 31
`Kobell v. Suburban Lines, Inc.,
`731 F.2d 1076 (3d Cir. 1984) ......................................... 17
`Kreisberg v. HealthBridge Mgmt., LLC,
`732 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 2013) ..................................... 20, 21
`Leslie v. Starbucks Corp.,
`2023 WL 5431800 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2023) ............. 29
`Lineback v. Irving Ready-Mix, Inc.,
`653 F.3d 566 (7th Cir. 2011) ................................... 16, 24
`McKinney v. Creative Vision Res., LLC,
`783 F.3d 293 (5th Cir. 2015) ................................... 18, 22
`McKinney v. Ozburn-Hessey Logistics, LLC,
`875 F.3d 333 (6th Cir. 2017) ................... 3, 12, 18, 26, 29
`McKinney v. S. Bakeries, LLC,
`786 F.3d 1119 (8th Cir. 2015) ........................... 16, 17, 25
`Miller v. Cal. Pac. Med. Ctr.,
`19 F.3d 449 (9th Cir. 1994) (en banc) .................... 17, 22
`Miller v. French, 530 U.S. 327 (2000) ............................... 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VII
`
`Page
`
`Cases—continued:
`Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms,
`561 U.S. 139 (2010) ........................................................ 25
`Muffley v. Spartan Mining Co.,
`570 F.3d 534 (4th Cir. 2009) ................. 15, 16, 21, 22, 30
`Murphy v. NSL Country Gardens, LLC,
`2019 WL 2075590 (D. Mass. May 10, 2019) ................ 20
`NLRB v. Acker Indus., Inc.,
`460 F.2d 649 (10th Cir. 1972) ....................................... 19
`NLRB v. Hartman & Tyner, Inc.,
`714 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2013) ............................... 19, 27
`Ohr v. Arlington Metals Corp.,
`148 F. Supp. 3d 659 (N.D. Ill. 2015) ............................ 26
`Ohr v. Nexeo Sols., LLC,
`871 F. Supp. 2d 794 (N.D. Ill. 2012) ............................ 25
`Osthus v. Ingredion, Inc.,
`2016 WL 4098541 (N.D. Iowa July 28, 2016) ............. 25
`Osthus v. RELCO Locomotives, Inc.,
`2012 WL 12884897 (S.D. Iowa Oct. 4, 2012) .............. 25
`Overstreet v. Apex Linen Holdings, LLC,
`618 F. Supp. 3d 1014 (D. Nev. 2022) ........................... 24
`Overstreet v. El Paso Disposal, L.P.,
`625 F.3d 844 (5th Cir. 2010) ......................................... 27
`Pascarell v. Gitano Grp., Inc.,
`730 F. Supp. 616 (D.N.J. 1990) .................................... 27
`Pascarell v. Vibra Screw Inc.,
`904 F.2d 874 (3d Cir. 1990) ........................................... 17
`Polselli v. IRS, 598 U.S. 432 (2023)................................... 31
`Pye v. Sullivan Bros. Printers, Inc.,
`38 F.3d 58 (1st Cir. 1994) .............................................. 20
`Rivera-Vega v. ConAgra, Inc.,
`70 F.3d 153 (1st Cir. 1995) ............................................ 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VIII
`
`Page
`
`Cases—continued:
`Sharp v. Parents in Cmty. Action, Inc.,
`172 F.3d 1034 (8th Cir. 1999) ........................... 16, 17, 25
`Sharp v. Webco Indus., Inc.,
`225 F.3d 1130 (10th Cir. 2000) ......................... 19, 27, 31
`Sheeran v. Am. Com. Lines, Inc.,
`683 F.2d 970 (6th Cir. 1982) ......................................... 12
`Starbucks Corp.,
`2023 WL 3254440 (NLRB May 4, 2023) ..................... 14
`Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo,
`456 U.S. 305 (1982) ........................................................ 30
`Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc.,
`555 U.S. 7 (2008) ............................................ 3, 12, 15, 30
`Statutes and Regulations:
`28 U.S.C. § 1254 ..................................................................... 2
`29 U.S.C.
`§ 153 ................................................................................... 6
`§ 158 ....................................................................... 6, 10, 31
`§ 160(a) .............................................................................. 6
`§ 160(b) .......................................................................... 2, 6
`§ 160(e) ............................................................................ 24
`§ 160(j) ......................................... 2-7, 10-11, 13-25, 28-32
`§ 160(l) ............................................................................. 31
`§ 161 ................................................................................... 6
`29 C.F.R.
`§ 101.10 .............................................................................. 3
`§ 101.12 .............................................................................. 3
`§ 101.14 .............................................................................. 3
`§ 102.35 .............................................................................. 3
`§ 102.46 .............................................................................. 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IX
`
`Page
`
`Other Authorities:
`William K. Briggs, Note, Deconstructing ‘Just
`and Proper,’ 110 Mich. L. Rev. 127 (2011) ................. 21
`Dee-Ann Durbin, As Starbucks Unionizing
`Slows, Some Strike, Others Skeptical,
`Associated Press (Jan. 10, 2023),
`https://tinyurl.com/sdh2bdw5 ........................................ 8
`Josh Eidelson, The Undercover Organizers
`Behind America’s Union Wins, Bloomberg
`(Apr. 3, 2023), https://tinyurl.com/2mcwyut2 .............. 8
`Leslie A. Fahrenkopf, Note, Striking the ‘Just and
`Proper’ Balance, 80 Va. L. Rev. 1159 (1994) ............. 21
`1 Labor and Employment Law § 15.13
`(Sept. 2023 update) ........................................................ 22
`Richard B. Lapp, A Call for a Simpler Approach:
`Examining the NLRA’s Section 10(j)
`Standard, 3 U. Pa. J. Lab. & Emp. L. 251
`(2001) ............................................................................... 21
`Simon Mainwaring, Purpose at Work, Forbes
`(July 7, 2021), https://tinyurl.com/vsh3jbc3 ................. 8
`Memorandum from Jennifer A. Abruzzo, NLRB
`General Counsel, to Regional Directors
`(Aug. 19, 2021), https://tinyurl.com/bdnjvs44 ............ 23
`Memorandum from Jennifer A. Abruzzo, NLRB
`General Counsel, to Regional Directors
`(Feb. 1, 2022), https://tinyurl.com/bdnjvs44 .......... 5, 23
`13 Moore’s Federal Practice § 65.22
`(Sept. 2023 update) ........................................................ 22
`NLRB, 10(j) Injunctions,
`https://tinyurl.com/yr6tywnd ....................... 7, 11, 23, 28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`X
`
`Page
`
`Other Authorities—continued:
`NLRB, Disposition of Unfair Labor Practice
`Charges Per FY, https://tinyurl.com/2p88cuvm .......... 6
`NLRB, Performance and Accountability Report
`FY 2022, https://tinyurl.com/37fcv6ms ............. 6, 23, 24
`NLRB Off. of the Gen. Counsel, Section 10(j)
`Manual (Feb. 2014) ........................................... 4, 7, 22-24
`NLRB Off. of Pub. Affs., NLRB Region 7-Detroit
`Wins Injunction Requiring Starbucks to
`Rehire Unlawfully Fired Worker
`(Feb. 28, 2023), https://tinyurl.com/y9d3bnzv ........... 11
`Howard Schultz, Statement Before the Senate
`Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
`Pensions (Mar. 29, 2023),
`https://tinyurl.com/ydh7phk7 ........................................ 8
`Starbucks, Barista Job Listing (Aug. 7, 2023),
`https://tinyurl.com/mwve6fe4 ........................................ 7
`Starbucks, Culture and Values,
`https://tinyurl.com/2trtbaam ......................................... 7
`Starbucks, Forging a Career Path at Starbucks
`(Aug. 12, 2015), https://tinyurl.com/2c3n9bxz.............. 7
`Starbucks, Our Long-Standing Efforts to Put
`Our Partners First (Mar. 13, 2023),
`https://tinyurl.com/m8yfj48d ..................................... 7, 8
`Starbucks Workers United, All Unionized Stores,
`https://tinyurl.com/y6fpb67w ....................................... 10
`Workers United Paid Nearly $2.5m to
`Organizers, “Salts,” and Activists at
`Starbucks, Lab. Union News (Apr. 25, 2023),
`https://tinyurl.com/53bxuwp5 ........................................ 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In the Supreme Court of the United States
`
`
`STARBUCKS CORPORATION,
`PETITIONER,
`
`v.
`
`M. KATHLEEN MCKINNEY, REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF
`REGION 15 OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
`FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE
`NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
`RESPONDENT.
`
`
`ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
`
`
`PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`
`
`Petitioner Starbucks Corporation respectfully peti-
`tions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the
`United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in
`this case.
`
`OPINIONS BELOW
`The court of appeals’ opinion is reported at 77 F.4th
`391. Pet.App.1a-39a. The district court’s opinion is unre-
`ported but available at 2022 WL 5434206. Pet.App.67a-
`121a.
`
`(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`JURISDICTION
`The court of appeals entered judgment on August 8,
`2023. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1254.
`STATUTORY PROVISION INVOLVED
`29 U.S.C. § 160(j) provides:
`The Board shall have power, upon issuance of a com-
`plaint as provided in subsection (b) charging that any per-
`son has engaged in or is engaging in an unfair labor prac-
`tice, 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.
`STATEMENT
`This case is the ideal vehicle for resolving an en-
`trenched, frequently recurring, and squarely presented
`circuit split over what standard the National Labor Rela-
`tions Board (NLRB) must satisfy for federal courts to
`preliminarily enjoin alleged unfair labor practices during
`the pendency of Board administrative proceedings. That
`split carries enormous consequences for employers na-
`tionwide and unacceptably threatens the uniformity of
`federal labor law.
`The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) author-
`izes the NLRB to bring administrative complaints against
`employers for alleged unfair labor practices. 29 U.S.C.
`§ 160(b). Administrative complaints trigger in-house pro-
`ceedings within the NLRB, first before an administrative
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`law judge (ALJ), and then the full Board. See 29 C.F.R.
`§§ 101.10, 101.12, 102.35, 102.46. That process often takes
`years. Then proceedings move to court, either because
`aggrieved parties seek judicial review or because the
`NLRB seeks enforcement of its orders. Id. § 101.14.
`Critically, under section 10(j) of the NLRA, after the
`NLRB issues an administrative complaint, the NLRB can
`ask federal district courts to preliminarily enjoin alleged
`unfair labor practices against employers or unions for the
`duration of agency proceedings. 29 U.S.C. § 160(j). But
`the NLRA lets district courts grant such injunctions only
`if the court “deems” relief “just and proper.” Id.
`The circuits are irrevocably split over the standard to
`impose such injunctions. Four circuits—the Fourth, Sev-
`enth, Eighth, and Ninth—require the NLRB to satisfy
`the same familiar standard applied in myriad other con-
`texts: the four-factor test for preliminary injunctions laid
`out in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,
`555 U.S. 7 (2008). Under that traditional test, preliminary
`injunctions are “an extraordinary remedy that may only
`be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is enti-
`tled to such relief.” Id. at 22.
`In direct conflict, five circuits—the Third, Fifth,
`Sixth, Tenth, and Eleventh—apply a dramatically lower,
`two-factor “reasonable cause” test that is “no real obsta-
`cle” to obtaining injunctions. Pet.App.31a (Readler, J.,
`concurring). The NLRB must merely show “reasonable
`cause” to believe that employers engaged in unfair labor
`practices and that an injunction protects the Board’s re-
`medial power. Pet.App.10a. Thus, the NLRB’s “burden”
`is “relatively insubstantial.” McKinney v. Ozburn-Hes-
`sey Logistics, LLC, 875 F.3d 333, 339 (6th Cir. 2017) (cita-
`tion omitted). As the NLRB’s internal manual on section
`10(j) injunctions puts it: The “threshold of proof … is low”
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`in circuits applying this test. NLRB Office of the General
`Counsel, Section 10(j) Manual app. L, at 5 (Feb. 2014).
`The NLRB need not show a likelihood of success, nor does
`the test require “strict adherence to equitable princi-
`ples”—and courts “[d]efer to the [NLRB’s] version of the
`facts if [it is] within the range of rationality.” Id. Finally,
`the First and Second Circuits use a hybrid test combining
`elements of the Winter and reasonable-cause standards.
`Courts and commentators widely acknowledge this
`split. The NLRB’s section 10(j) manual features a 45-
`page appendix detailing the split. Id. app. D. Only this
`Court can resolve the conflict and provide much-needed
`national uniformity.
`This Court’s intervention is imperative because the
`standard that governs the NLRB’s preliminary injunction
`requests is routinely outcome-determinative—as this
`case underscores. Over the last eighteen months, the
`NLRB has sought ten section 10(j) injunctions against
`Starbucks—over a third of all section 10(j) petitions the
`NLRB filed. So far, the Board has sought injunctions
`against Starbucks in courts in the Second, Sixth, Ninth,
`Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits, often asserting similar
`types of charges as those here. Starbucks has defeated
`injunction requests in circuits applying the traditional
`preliminary-injunction test. But the NLRB has prevailed
`in circuits that apply the watered-down reasonable-cause
`standard. As Judge Readler observed, the result in this
`case might have “been drastically different had the Board
`been asked to satisfy the Winter standard.” Pet.App.34a.
`The NLRB’s own manual underscores the daylight
`between the tests, instructing agency lawyers to file dif-
`ferent pleadings and answer district courts’ questions dif-
`ferently depending on the circuit. Section 10(j) Manual,
`supra, apps. H, L. Nationwide businesses like Starbucks
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`should not have to contest the same relief against the
`same agency under three different tests, depending on
`where the employer resides or the alleged unfair labor
`practice occurred.
`This circuit split is particularly intolerable because
`section 10(j) injunctions are immensely consequential for
`businesses. The NLRB has used injunctions to force em-
`ployers to reinstate employees terminated for severe
`workplace disruptions, keep open loss-making facilities,
`and bar changes to company policy. And, because section
`10(j) injunctions remain in place until the NLRB finishes
`its administrative proceedings, the Board controls how
`long the injunction lasts, and has no incentive to move ex-
`peditiously. On average, the NLRB takes two-plus years
`to issue final orders, meaning employers must operate un-
`der coercive injunctions the whole time—even if employ-
`ers ultimately prevail before the Board or in court.
`Moreover, the NLRB’s “§ 10(j) activity is on the rise.”
`Pet.App.21a (Readler, J., concurring). Recently, the
`NLRB’s General Counsel promised to bring the “weight
`of a federal district court’s order” down on employers at
`the “earliest” stage of proceedings. Memorandum from
`Jennifer A. Abruzzo, NLRB General Counsel, to Regional
`Directors 1 (Feb. 1, 2022), https://tinyurl.com/bdnjvs44
`(Feb. 2022 Abruzzo Memo). And the NLRB has started
`seeking “nationwide” injunctions within favorable circuits
`that employ the lesser reasonable-cause standard. E.g.,
`Kerwin v. Starbucks Corp., 2023 WL 2186563, at *6 (E.D.
`Mich. Feb. 23, 2023). This Court should grant certiorari
`to resolve the acknowledged, increasingly important, and
`entrenched circuit split, which this case cleanly and
`squarely presents.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`A. Statutory Background
`The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 established
`the National Labor Relations Board, an independent
`agency tasked with “prevent[ing] any person from engag-
`ing in any unfair labor practice.” 29 U.S.C. §§ 153, 160(a).
`The NLRB’s “authority kicks in when a person files a
`charge with the agency alleging that an unfair labor prac-
`tice is afoot.” Glacier Nw., Inc. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters,
`598 U.S. 771, 775 (2023).
`Every year, the NLRB receives tens of thousands of
`charges, each triggering the Board’s power to investigate.
`29 U.S.C. §§ 160(b), 161; NLRB, Disposition of Unfair
`Labor Practice Charges Per FY, https://tinyurl.com/
`2p88cuvm. During an investigation, the NLRB can de-
`mand access to “any evidence” the employer has
`“relat[ing] to any matter under investigation” and may is-
`sue subpoenas “requiring the attendance and testimony
`of witnesses or the production of any evidence.” 29 U.S.C.
`§ 161(1). If the NLRB moves forward—which happens to
`41% of charges—the Board issues a complaint, launching
`administrative proceedings against the employer. Id.
`§ 160(b); NLRB, Performance and Accountability Re-
`port FY 2022, at 26, https://tinyurl.com/37fcv6ms.
`By issuing a complaint, the NLRB also triggers its
`statutory authority to ask federal courts for a preliminary
`injunction to award the Board interim relief. Section 10(j)
`of the NLRA provides that, “upon issuance of a com-
`plaint,” the NLRB may “petition any United States dis-
`trict court … for appropriate temporary relief or [a] re-
`straining order.” 29 U.S.C. § 160(j). While section 10(j)
`lets the NLRB seek injunctions against both employers
`and unions, id. §§ 158(a)-(b), 160(j), the NLRB does not
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`appear to have sought relief against a union in over a dec-
`ade. See NLRB, 10(j) Injunctions, https://tinyurl.com/
`yr6tywnd.
`Under section 10(j), a federal district court has dis-
`cretion to grant such relief “as it deems just and proper.”
`29 U.S.C. § 160(j). If granted, the injunction remains in
`place for the duration of NLRB proceedings. See Hadsall
`v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., 993 F.3d 992, 994 (7th Cir. 2021).
`Section 10(j) injunctions thus create powerful incentives
`for employers to settle, especially since the NLRB con-
`trols how long administrative proceedings last—and thus
`how long preliminary injunctions endure. See Section
`10(j) Manual, supra, at 15.
`B. Factual Background
`1. Starbucks operates coffeehouses around the globe.
`Starbucks and its licensees have 34,000 locations that
`serve 60 million people every week. To make all those
`Pumpkin Spice Lattes and Frappuccinos, Starbucks in
`the United States employs some 235,000 people, who are
`“partners,” reflecting the company’s longtime view that
`its people—along with its coffee—are what prompt cus-
`tomers to return. Starbucks, Culture and Values,
`https://tinyurl.com/2trtbaam; see Starbucks, Our Long-
`Standing Efforts to Put Our Partners First (Mar. 13,
`2023), https://tinyurl.com/m8yfj48d.
`Starbucks imposes few threshold requirements for
`baristas, instead opening the job to a wide array of appli-
`cants and prioritizing on-the-job learning. “[P]unctual-
`ity,” coupled with the “[a]bility to learn quickly” and “un-
`derstand” customers, are key. Starbucks, Barista Job
`Listing (Aug. 7, 2023), https://tinyurl.com/mwve6fe4. But
`baristas can go far within Starbucks—rising to manage
`stores or entire regions. Starbucks, Forging a Career
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`Path at Starbucks (Aug. 12, 2015), https://tinyurl.com/
`2c3n9bxz. Starbucks thus prides itself on its reputation
`for “listening” to its partners, “understand[ing] their ed-
`ucational and career aspirations,” and ensuring “access to
`programs,” so that they can grow with the company. Si-
`mon Mainwaring, Purpose at Work, Forbes (July 7, 2021),
`https://tinyurl.com/vsh3jbc3.
`In keeping with that focus, Starbucks has long offered
`“industry-leading benefits” to its partners. Howard
`Schultz, Statement Before the Senate Committee on
`Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 2 (Mar. 29,
`2023), https://tinyurl.com/ydh7phk7.
` Starbucks was
`“among the first companies to provide comprehensive
`health care.” Id. Today, Starbucks offers partners stock
`ownership, student loan assistance, paid sick leave, and
`backup child care. Id. at 2-3; see Our Long-Standing Ef-
`forts, supra.
`Since 2021, the union Workers United has cam-
`paigned to unionize U.S. Starbucks stores. Workers
`United has “paid nearly $2.5 million” to consultants and
`organizers involved in the Starbucks campaign. Workers
`United Paid Nearly $2.5m to Organizers, “Salts,” and
`Activists at Starbucks, Lab. Union News (Apr. 25, 2023),
`https://tinyurl.com/53bxuwp5. “Undercover organizers”
`funded by Workers United have been “key” to union
`drives at Starbucks stores. Josh Eidelson, The Under-
`cover Organizers Behind America’s Union Wins, Bloom-
`berg (Apr. 3, 2023), https://tinyurl.com/2mcwyut2. But by
`January 2023, 63 stores had voted against unionization as
`the “union drive … face[d] resistance from Starbucks’
`own workers.” Dee-Ann Durbin, As Starbucks Unioniz-
`ing Slows, Some Strike, Others Skeptical, Associated
`Press (Jan. 10, 2023), https://tinyurl.com/sdh2bdw5.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`2. This case involves a Starbucks store in Memphis,
`Tennessee where some two dozen Starbucks partners
`work. Pet.App.71a. In January 2022, six partners work-
`ing with Workers United announced plans to unionize the
`store and formed an organizing committee to lead the ef-
`fort. Pet.App.72a-77a.
`On Tuesday, January 18, 2022, partners invited a
`news crew to visit the Memphis store after hours to pro-
`mote the unionization drive. Pet.App.77a-78a. After the
`store closed for the day, off-duty partners returned to the
`store, let the news crew in, and locked the door behind
`them—all without authorization. Pet.App.77a-78a. The
`news crew spent nearly an hour interviewing the partners
`within the closed store. Pet.App.78a. Meanwhile, off-duty
`partners entered staff-only areas of the store; one of them
`even accessed the safe. Pet.App.78a.
`Starbucks learned of the event the next day and re-
`viewed security-camera footage and interviewed the part-
`ners involved. Pet.App.79a. Company policy bars much
`of what the partners did—for example, off-duty partners
`cannot enter stores or let in unauthorized people.
`Pet.App.82a-83a. Starbucks thus terminated seven of the
`partners in the store without authorization; five belonged
`to the union organizing committee. Pet.App.82a-83a.
`Starbucks did not terminate the one organizing-commit-
`tee member not present in the closed store. Pet.App.5a-
`6a, 77a. And Starbucks did not terminate two partners
`who committed more minor policy violations, like not ring-
`ing up a free beverage. Pet.App.83a-84a.
`Shortly after the terminations, Workers United
`launched disruptive protests. Asked to describe “union
`activity” at the Memphis store, one manager detailed how
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`protesters “circl[ed] the property” and drove cars “back-
`wards through the drive-thru lane honking their horns.”
`6/16/22 Tr. 1152:24, 1153:1-16, D. Ct. Dkt. 75. Protestors
`“cursed at” the manager who “had to be escorted” to his
`car when he left. Id. As the manager testified, the scene
`was “terrifying, frightening,” and “chaotic.” Id.
`In June 2022, partners at the Memphis store voted
`11-3 to unionize under Workers United. Pet.App.7a. The
`Memphis store remains unionized today. Starbucks
`Workers United, All Unionized Stores, https://
`tinyurl.com/y6fpb67w.
`C. Administrative and Judicial Proceedings
`1. In February and April 2022, Workers United filed
`charges with the NLRB, alleging that Starbucks commit-
`ted unfair labor practices in violation of the NLRA by, in-
`ter alia, terminating partners who broke company poli-
`cies by entering the store after hours and giving the news
`crew unauthorized store access. Pet.App.68a-69a; see 29
`U.S.C. § 158(a)(1), (3).
`On April 22, 2022—just ten days after receiving the
`last of Workers United’s charges—the NLRB issued an
`administrative complaint alleging that Starbucks had
`committed unfair labor practices, including by firing part-
`ners who violated company policy. Pet.App.69a. Less
`than three weeks later, on May 10, 2022, the NLRB,
`through its regional director, respondent M. Kathleen
`McKinney, petitioned the district court under section
`10(j) for an injunction pending resolution of those pro-
`ceedings. Pet.App.69a. The NLRB asked the district
`court, among other things, to order Starbucks to reinstate
`the fired partners within five days. Pet.App.120a.
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`That petition marked the NLRB’s tenth request for a
`section 10(j) injunction against Starbucks in the last eight-
`een months. 10(j) Injunctions, supra. The NLRB has
`publicly stated its intent to “seek nationwide relief before
`circuit court judges, district court judges, administrative
`law judges, and the Board to remedy” perceived “viola-
`tions of federal labor law by Starbucks.” NLRB Office of
`Public Affairs, NLRB Region 7-Detroit Wins Injunction
`Requiring Starbucks to Rehire Unlawfully Fired Worker
`(Feb. 28, 2023), https://tinyurl.com/y9d3bnzv. Starbucks
`currently accounts for more than a third of all section 10(j)
`injunction requests the NLRB has made in the last eight-
`een months. 10(j) Injunctions, supra.
`2. In August 2022, the district court granted the
`NLRB’s requested injunction, applying the Sixth Cir-
`cuit’s relaxed standard for section 10(j) petitions.
`Pet.App.119a. The court required the NLRB to show
`merely (1) “‘reasonable cause’ to believe that an unfair la-
`bor practice has occurred,” and (2) that “injunctive relief
`is ‘just and proper.’” Pet.App.88a (citing Ahearn v. Jack-
`son Hosp. Corp., 351 F.3d 226, 234 (6th Cir. 2003)).
`The district court held that the NLRB met its “rela-
`tively insubstantial burden to establish reasonable cause.”
`Pet.App.89a. The court considered it sufficient that the
`NLRB offered “some evidence” that supported a “not
`frivolous” legal theory. Pet.App.89a (citation omitted).
`Here, the Board offered testimony that Starbucks did not
`always fire partners for similar policy violations to sug-
`gest that Starbucks actually fired Memphis partners for
`their union activity. Pet.App.103a-104a. Though Star-
`bucks countered with evidence refuting the NLRB’s ac-
`count, the district court “disregard[ed]” it because the
`reasonable cause standard left “conflicts in the evidence”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`and “issues of witness credibili
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
