Supreme Court Adopts HRPA’s Argument in Decision Constraining NLRB Injunctions

The NLRB must meet the same test as other plaintiffs in order to be granted an injunction against an employer, the Supreme Court ruled in an 8-1 decision yesterday on an appeal brought by Starbucks, supported by an amicus brief filed by the Association. 

Starbucks appealed a Sixth Circuit decision upholding an injunction that required the company to rehire seven workers who were fired for violating company policy by inviting a TV news crew into the store after hours. The employees had earlier announced plans to unionize the store and sought news coverage to promote their efforts.  

Recognizing that Board cases may take months or longer to resolve, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) allows the Board to seek injunctions to constrain or compel employers to take certain actions, not limited to reinstating discharged employees, while the NLRB case remains pending. The question before the Court involved what standard the Board must meet to be granted an injunction. 

HR Policy Association submitted an amicus brief, along with other business groups, advocating that the Supreme Court require that lower courts analyze Board injunction requests using a strict test that has been the traditional measure of whether an injunction is warranted, rather than a more lenient standard that the Sixth Circuit and some other circuits have applied to cases brought under the NLRA 

Arguing that injunctions were not meant to be an ordinary, everyday occurrence, HRPA’s brief argued: “The deferential standard applied by these courts has significant impacts on employers across industries. The resulting injunctions can affect a range of business activity—from employment of particular workers, to closing or relocating facilities, to selling financially draining assets.” 

The traditional, strict test requires a party seeking an injunction to meet four prongs: 

• Likely success on the merits; 

• Irreparable harm is likely without preliminary relief; 

• Balance of the equities tip toward the party seeking the injunction; and 

• The injunction is in the public interest. 

The Supreme Court agreed with business concerns in its nearly unanimous decision which will serve as a helpful deterrent to NLRB General Counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo’s call for more aggressive and frequent use of injunctions by the Board. 

What’s next: The Supreme Court returns the case to the Court of Appeals to reconsider the case and determine if the Board meets the strict traditional test rather than the lenient test the court originally applied.