By Robert G. Brody and William C. Collins
On September 18, 2024, a panel of three Third US Circuit Court of Appeals judges heard oral argument from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Starbucks on the matter of consequential damages. At stake is the NLRB’s power to award damages for direct and foreseeable pecuniary harms that go beyond lost pay and benefits. The award of such things as credit card late payment costs and uninsured medical costs, fees for not timely paying other expenses, etc. are at issue. If such awards are within the NLRB’s authority, the damage awards in NLRB wrongful discharge cases could dramatically rise.
Here is how we got to this point. In 2023, the NLRB ordered Starbucks to pay consequential damages in a case of the wrongful termination of two pro-union employees. Damages included “direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms incurred as a result of [the employees’ wrongful discharges.]” This case is one of many cases Starbucks faces alleging wrongful discharge of union supporters. If it losses, the monetary cost could be significant. By filing this appeal, Starbucks’s joins companies such as Amazon, SpaceX, and Trader Joe’s in challenging the NLRB’s constitutional authority to exert such enforcement powers.
Traditionally, the Board would order reinstatement, backpay and lost benefits in a case of wrongful termination, however this was expanded in 2022. A Board decision in Thryv, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 22 (2021), held employees who are wrongfully terminated should also receive compensation for other pecuniary losses stemming from the termination. Examples include credit card cost, out of pocket medical expenses, mortgages related fees, etc. Such damages can quickly add up.
In this latest Starbucks case, the Third Circuit considered Thryv but also the US Supreme Court’s June ruling in Jarkesy v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and its applicability to the NLRB. In Jarkesy, the Supreme Court found it was unconstitutional for the SEC to impose civil penalties in administrative cases. Such awards need to be awarded in a court. The Third Circuit must decide whether the expanded remedies sought by the NLRB would be considered “legal remedies” typically imposed by the courts as in Jarkesy or “equitable remedies” typically imposed by administrative agencies. Such administrative remedies are intended to benefit the worker rather than unfairly punish employers.
The NLRB argued they have the authority to impose the remedies regardless of their status as legal or equitable. Not surprisingly, Starbucks argued allowing the NLRB to issue damages beyond backpay would violate their constitutional right to a jury trial and therefore was unconstitutional. The outcome is pending and regardless, it may well be appealed to the Supreme Court where the authority of various agencies is being curtailed. We will keep you informed.
Brody and Associates regularly advises management on complying with the latest local, state and federal employment laws. If we can be of assistance in this area, please contact us at info@brodyandassociates.com or 203.454.0560
