Starbucks receives sympathetic Supreme Court reception in union case

Starbucks received a sympathetic reception at the Supreme Court on Tuesday, as it fought a lower court judgement ordering it to reinstate seven employees amid a unionization drive. 

The justices are weighing how difficult it should be to halt alleged unfair labor practices as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) processes complaints, which can sometimes take years. 

Federal appeals courts have applied different legal tests for when to dole out the so-called 10(j) injunctions, which can force companies to reinstate employees, keep facilities open and pause corporate policy changes. 

Lower courts ordered Starbucks to reinstate the seven employees by applying the more lenient test.

Starbucks says that version is a “huge problem,” urging the justices to order lower courts to instead apply their traditional, four-factor test that would be more stringent.

Several of the court’s conservative justices appeared sympathetic to that position, asking relatively few questions to Starbucks’s lawyer while pressing the government on its proposed standard. 

“In all sorts of alphabet soup agencies we don’t do this … so why is this particular statutory regime different than so many others?” Justice Neil Gorsuch asked the government’s lawyer. 

The case arose from the “Memphis Seven,” seven Starbucks employees who were terminated in 2022 during a unionization effort. The employees had publicly posted a letter addressed to the company’s CEO and sat down in the store with a television news crew to discuss the organizing efforts. 

The coffee giant said it lawfully terminated the employees for breaking the company’s policies the day of the television interview, including by going behind the counter while off-duty and unlocking a locked door to allow an unauthorized person to enter the store. 

The dispute came amid a broader unionization wave at Starbucks. Starbucks Workers United said earlier this year that 400 stores with more than 10,000 workers have joined the union. 

Starbucks is not challenging the constitutionality of the NLRB. At issue before the justices is what criteria apply when the NLRB goes to court seeking injunctions until it resolves a labor complaint, like the agency did to get the Memphis Seven reinstated. 

Starbucks argues courts should apply their four traditional criteria, but the NLRB contends it should receive more deference given its role in investigating unlawful labor practices.  

“The district court is an independent check, so it seems like it should be just doing what district courts do since it was given the authority to do it,” said Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Though that sentiment was echoed by multiple justices during the argument, not all agreed. 

“This is not just the standard preliminary injunction that district courts do on a daily basis in regular ordinary cases,” said Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of the court’s liberals. 

Lisa Blatt, the attorney arguing on behalf of Starbucks, rejected that notion, saying, “It is an ordinary preliminary injunction, and this is an ordinary statute.” 

Austin Raynor, an assistant to the solicitor general who represented the government, cited data that the NLRB only sought the injunctions at issue in a handful of instances last year out of the 20,000 unfair labor charges it received. 

“This isn’t a case where the board is engaged in abuse or bringing all sorts of claims before courts,” Raynor said. 

That point appeared to garner sympathy from Jackson, who suggested that “this is not sounding like a huge problem.” 

And fellow liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor at one point noted data that the NLRB’s win rate under its favored standard is only 61 percent. 

“So, it’s not a rubber stamp to win,” Sotomayor said. 

A decision in the case, Starbucks v. McKinney, is expected by the end of June.