US appeals court narrows NLRB anti-unionization ruling against Starbucks

A federal appeals court on Friday declined to enforce most of a National Labor Relations Board ruling that Starbucks illegally threatened employees with retaliation for unionizing and gave the false impression it was monitoring organizing efforts.

In a 2-0 decision, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected claims that the coffee chain violated federal labor law when a Wichita, Kansas store manager and an assistant manager told employees they closed their hiring portal and reduced hours because of union or other protected activities.

The New Orleans-based court upheld a finding that Starbucks illegally threatened to deny maternity leave benefits to a pregnant employee if workers unionized.

Starbucks and its lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for comment, and the NLRB also did not immediately respond to similar requests.

Employees at more than 700 Starbucks stores have voted to join unions and have filed hundreds of complaints with the NLRB accusing the Seattle-based company of illegal labor practices.

Circuit Judge Stephen Higginson said the statements about the hiring portal and store hours were not threats of reprisal, reasoning that a hiring pause did not appear to imperil employees’ job security and that understaffing could justify shorter hours.

He also determined that store manager Carmella Neri’s comments—saying she knew about unionization discussions and that employees should consider the impact of a successful vote—were not coercive, calling them not out of the ordinary.

Higginson nonetheless found substantial evidence that the pregnant employee, Maia Cuellar-Serafini, could reasonably feel that union activities could reduce her benefits.

Friday’s ruling came two days after Starbucks persuaded the federal appeals court in Manhattan to reverse an NLRB finding that it illegally barred workers at a store in Manhattan’s Meatpacking District from wearing t-shirts or multiple pins supporting a union.

That court said the NLRB failed to properly balance Starbucks’ ability to present its preferred image to customers with employees’ right to encourage unionizing.