The Supreme Court agreed Friday to hear a Starbucks lawsuit challenging a federal judge's order to reinstate seven employees who were fired at a Memphis store during a union drive there.
Starbucks argued that the criteria for such intervention by judges in employment cases, which can include measures such as reopening closed stores, varies across regions of the country because federal appeals courts may hold to different standards.
A regional director for the National Labor Relations Board, the company's opponent in the case, argued that the apparent differences in criteria between appeals courts were more semantic than substantive and that a single effective standard already existed nationwide.
The labor board had asked the Supreme Court to stay out of the case, the outcome of which could impact union organizing across the country.
The agency is asking federal judges for temporary relief, such as reinstating fired workers, as unfair labor practice charges can take years to litigate. The agency argues that retaliation against workers in the meantime can have a chilling effect on organizing, even if the workers ultimately win their case.
In a statement Friday, Starbucks said, “We are pleased that the Supreme Court has decided to consider our request to level the playing field for all U.S. employers by ensuring that a single standard is applied as federal district courts.”
The working committee declined to comment.
The Starbucks union organizing campaign began in the Buffalo area in 2021 and quickly spread to other states. The Workers United union represents workers at more than 370 Starbucks stores, out of approximately 9,600 company-owned stores in the United States.
The Labor Department has filed dozens of complaints against the company based on hundreds of allegations of labor law violations, including threats and retaliation against workers seeking to unionize and failure to bargain in good faith. This week, the agency filed a complaint accusing the company of unilaterally changing work hours and schedules at unionized stores across the country.
The company has denied violating labor laws, saying in a statement that it has disputed the latest complaint and intends to “defend our lawful business decisions before a judge.”
The case that led to the Supreme Court battle involves seven workers who were fired in February 2022 after they let local journalists into a closed store to conduct interviews. Starbucks said the incident violated company rules; The workers and the union said the company did not enforce such rules against workers who were not involved in union organizing.
The labor department found the workers' allegations justified and filed a complaint two months later. A federal judge granted the labor department's request for an order reinstating the workers in August, and a federal appeals court upheld the order.
“Starbucks is asking Trump’s Supreme Court to bail out its illegal union crackdown,” Workers United said in a statement Friday. “There is no doubt that Starbucks violated federal law by firing workers in Memphis because they formed a union.”
Starbucks said it was critical for the Supreme Court to take up the case as the labor board becomes increasingly ambitious and calls on judges to order remedies such as reinstating laid-off workers.
The Labor Department noted in its filing with the Supreme Court that it issued fewer injunctions overall than in recent years – only 21 were approved in 2022, compared to more than 35 in 2014 and 2015.
A Supreme Court decision could fundamentally raise the hurdle for judges to issue orders reinstating workers, effectively limiting the Labor Department's ability to obtain temporary relief for workers during a union campaign.
The case is not the only current challenge to the Labor Department's powers. After its board filed a complaint accusing rocket company SpaceX of illegally firing eight employees because they criticized its chief executive, Elon Musk, the company filed a lawsuit this month arguing that the agency's creation was intended to assessment of complaints is unconstitutional.
The company said in its lawsuit that the agency's structure violated its right to a jury trial.