The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is the latest federal appeals court to hear a challenge to the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) expansion of the remedies available for employees subjected to unfair labor practices. Starbucks, the coffee shop giant, has urged the court to reject an NLRB order requiring the company to rehire a barista fired allegedly due to her union support and pay her more than just back wages.

Starbucks Fights NLRB's Expanded Remedies, Raising Concerns over Statutory Authority

Questioning the NLRB's Authority to Order "Make-Whole Relief"

Starbucks is targeting the NLRB's 2022 decision in Thryv Inc. v. NLRB, which allowed the agency to order "make-whole relief" for those who suffered an unfair labor practice. This includes compensation for "all direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms," such as credit-card fees, mortgage charges, child-care bills, and medical expenses. Sixth Circuit Judge Chad Readler questioned the NLRB's authority under U.S. Supreme Court precedent to order such relief, stating that it "just feels like a major departure" from past practices.Employers have targeted the Thryv decision in other circuits as well. In an appeal to the ruling itself, the Fifth Circuit held in May that software and marketing services company Thryv did not violate labor law by failing to bargain in good faith when it laid off six employees. The Fifth Circuit vacated an NLRB order that required the company to reimburse the workers for medical expenses and credit-card fees, though the court did not answer whether the NLRB could impose such relief in the future.

Starbucks' Argument: NLRA Only Allows for Reinstatement and Back Pay

Starbucks, in its brief, argued that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) only allows the NLRB to order employers to cease and desist from violating the law and take "affirmative action" such as reinstatement or back pay. The agency, however, countered that the statute broadly allows "direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms" necessary to restore employees to the situation they were in prior to the unlawful conduct.The NLRB's attorney, Eric Weitz, pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1983 ruling in Bill Johnson's Restaurants Inc. v. NLRB, which required a company to pay legal expenses incurred by an employee defending against a retaliatory lawsuit brought by the employer. Weitz argued that the Thryv decision is a "major change" because the NLRB is now including this type of relief as a standard part of its review, rather than on an ad hoc basis.

Starbucks' Constitutional Argument: Seventh Amendment Concerns

Starbucks also argued that only courts and juries can award compensatory damages to private parties under the Seventh Amendment. The company pointed to the Supreme Court's recent holding in SEC v. Jarkesy, which found the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's imposition of civil fraud penalties unconstitutional.Sarah Harris, Starbucks' attorney from Williams & Connolly, reiterated the company's position that the NLRA's reference to "affirmative action" only refers to equity, not compensatory damages. She argued that the Fifth Circuit's characterization of Thryv as permitting "novel, compensatory damages-like remedies" is a significant issue for the NLRB.In contrast, the NLRB argued that Congress enabled the agency to order make-whole relief to vindicate public rights, so the Seventh Amendment argument is invalid.

Judges Express Concerns and Seek Clarity on NLRB's Authority

During the Sixth Circuit hearing, Judge Jane Stranch seemed wary of Starbucks' position that Thryv conflicts with Supreme Court precedent. She noted that case law shows the NLRB has been granting make-whole remedies since the 1940s, questioning whether Starbucks' argument that this is a "wholly new" approach holds merit.Judge Alice Batchelder also sat on the Sixth Circuit panel, indicating the court's interest in thoroughly examining the issues surrounding the NLRB's expanded remedies and their potential impact on employers.As the Sixth Circuit considers Starbucks v. NLRB, No. 23-1767, the outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for the NLRB's ability to provide comprehensive relief to employees who have been subjected to unfair labor practices.

In a remarkable display of justice and compassion, two elderly sisters from Hanford, California have been awarded a staggering $17 million settlement following a devastating traffic accident involving a city vehicle. The case, which spanned a two-week trial, has not only provided financial security for the sisters but also serves as a testament to their unwavering strength and resilience in the face of adversity.

Triumph Over Tragedy: A Story of Resilience and Perseverance

Accident Leaves Sisters Struggling with Everyday Tasks

The incident occurred in a remote area of Houston Avenue and 13th Street, where a city vehicle ran a stop sign, colliding with the sisters' car. The impact of the crash left Gayle and Barbara, the two elderly siblings, with injuries that have significantly impaired their ability to perform everyday tasks that most of us take for granted. Over time, the physical and emotional toll of the accident has contributed to declining health conditions for the sisters, underscoring the profound and lasting impact of the incident.

Seeking Justice: A Hard-Fought Legal Battle

The sisters' legal team, determined to ensure that justice was served, embarked on a rigorous two-week trial. The court's findings ultimately concluded that the City of Hanford was liable for the accident, paving the way for the historic $17 million judgment. Gayle, the elder sister, was awarded a staggering $9.6 million, while Barbara received $7.8 million, a testament to the gravity of their injuries and the city's culpability.

A Verdict that Transcends Monetary Compensation

The lawyers representing the sisters emphasized that the verdict is not merely about the monetary compensation, but rather a reflection of the sisters' unwavering strength and resilience. They stated that "justice in full is not discounted justice" for Gayle and Barbara, underscoring the profound impact this case will have on their lives and the lives of others facing similar challenges.

Securing a Safe and Healthy Future

The design of the funds awarded to the sisters was to ensure that they can live safe, secure, and healthy lives for the remainder of their days. This settlement will not only provide the necessary resources for their ongoing care and support but also serve as a symbol of the justice system's ability to protect the vulnerable and hold those responsible accountable.

A Triumph of the Human Spirit

The story of Gayle and Barbara's journey through this ordeal is a testament to the resilience of the human spirit. Despite the immense challenges they have faced, their unwavering determination and strength have shone through, inspiring others and serving as a reminder that even in the face of adversity, justice and compassion can prevail.