By Jason Albright, J.D.
The Board had ordered Starbucks to compensate a fired shift supervisor and union organizer for any “direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms” suffered because of its anti-union discrimination against her.
Granting enforcement as to the NLRB’s finding that Starbucks unlawfully fired a shift supervisor who led a movement to organize a union at one of its cafés, the Sixth Circuit held that the Board nonetheless exceeded its authority when it ordered Starbucks to compensate her, pursuant to Thryv, Inc., for any “direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms” she suffered because of the anti-union discrimination against her. Although Section 10(c) enables the Board to order employers “to take such affirmative action including reinstatement of employees with or without back pay, as will effectuate” the policies of the NLRA, “affirmative action” encompasses only equitable remedies, the appeals court found, and the remedy the Board imposed reflects legal relief, to which the right to a jury trial attaches. Judge Stranch dissented as to that holding (NLRB v. Starbucks Corp., No. 23-1767 (6th Cir. Nov. 5, 2025)).
Barista at Main and Liberty store. Starbucks hired the charging party in 2019 to work as a barista at its Main and Liberty store in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Several weeks later, it promoted her to shift supervisor. In that role, she maintained “all the duties of a barista” and assumed the responsibility to “help[] guide the work of others and assist[] with...
Los Angeles County’s district attorney has opened an investigation into claims of fraud within the largest sex abuse settlement in U.S. history. Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman said Wednesday his offic...