The Labor Law Insider: How Unions Are Navigating Trump 2.0, Part II
The Labor Law Insider - How Unions Are Navigating Trump 2.0, Part I
The Labor Law Insider: What's Next for Labor Law Under the Trump Administration, Part II
The Burr Broadcast: Captive Audience Meetings
The Labor Law Insider - Elections Have Consequences: Labor Law Changes Anticipated Under Trump Administration, Part II
The Labor Law Insider - Elections Have Consequences: Labor Law Changes Anticipated Under Trump Administration, Part I
#WorkforceWednesday®: What a Trump Win Means for Unions - Employment Law This Week®
#WorkforceWednesday®: How to Navigate Employee Stress After Election Day - Employment Law This Week®
#WorkforceWednesday®: NLRB’s Expanding Power - Pushback and Legal Challenges Ahead - Employment Law This Week®
Legal Alert | NLRB ALJ Finds Post Employment Non-Compete and Non-Solicit Provisions Unlawful
The Labor Law Insider - NLRB Remedies: “Draconian” Says the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Thryv, Part II
The Labor Law Insider - NLRB Remedies: “Draconian” Says the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Thryv
SCOTUS Limits Availability of Injunctions in NLRB Unfair Labor Practice Cases - Employment Law This Week®
The Labor Law Insider: What Just Happened, and What's Next? 2023 Labor Law Retrospective, Part II
The Burr Broadcast: NLRB's Stericycle Decision and Its Implications for Employer Handbooks
Labor Law Insider - Forget the Election: Union Representation Without the Messy Election is the Next Labor Law Reality, Part I
JONES DAY TALKS® - Charting the Course: Antitrust's Past, Present, and Future in Labor Markets
The Labor Law Insider - Decertification of Union Bargaining Unit: What’s Happening Today, Part II
Labor Law Insider – Decertification of Union Bargaining Unit: What’s Happening Today
#WorkforceWednesday: NLRB Unfair Labor Practice Charges Surge, NYC Prohibits Size Discrimination, FL Expands E-Verify Requirements - Employment Law This Week®
In IUOE, Local 39 v. National Labor Relations Board, No. 23-124, No. 23-150, 23-188, a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit panel issued a 2-1 ruling on January 21, 2025, enforcing a National Labor Relations Board...more
On January 21, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit enforced a National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”) order requiring Macy’s to provide workers with heightened remedies in response to an...more
In 2024, labor law continued to generally favor employees under the Biden National Labor Relations Board (the Board). Notable developments included establishment of an employee right to wear clothes espousing political speech...more
As we previously addressed, on June 13, 2024, the Supreme Court struck a blow to the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) and provided employers a major win in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, et al., a case involving a...more
On October 21, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board, Case No. 23-2302 (9th Cir.) heard oral argument on the revised National...more
The Dartmouth men’s basketball team is scheduled to tip-off its 2024-25 NCAA season. Not surprisingly, they will do so without a labor contract, notwithstanding the team’s historic vote last March to unionize under federal...more
Earlier this year, the US Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, adopted a more restrictive test for evaluating requests for injunctive relief under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act...more
The Supreme Court issued several momentous decisions last term that will have a lasting impact on employer practices. The Justices continued to shape the workplace law landscape by ruling on an array of issues involving...more
On July 16, 2024, the National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB” or the “Board”) General Counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo, released GC Memorandum 24-05 to all field offices stating that the agency should continue “to aggressively seek...more
On June 13, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued Starbucks v. McKinney,1 which clarifies the legal standard governing temporary injunctions sought by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) against employers alleged...more
In Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, 602 U.S. ____ (2024) (hereafter, "Starbucks"), the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) recently resolved a circuit split to clarify that if the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) seeks a...more
In a win for employers facing unfair labor practice charges, the Supreme Court’s holding in Starbucks v. McKinney makes it more difficult for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to obtain Section 10(j) injunctions....more
In a 9-0 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court recently sided with Starbucks Corp. over the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in a decision that would severely delay the process for the NLRB to obtain preliminary injunctions...more
In an eight-to-one decision this month, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Starbucks in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, involving a longstanding legal battle against the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB was...more
On June 13 the U.S. Supreme Court heightened the standard a court must apply to an NLRB request for a preliminary injunction against an employer accused of violating federal labor law....more
Four months ago, we told you about a brewing labor law issue – whether the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) must satisfy the traditional preliminary injunction standard to secure an injunction against an...more
The Supreme Court of the United States recently unanimously ruled against the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney. The decision reversed the NLRB’s attempt to change the standard for...more
The US Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, ruled that federal district courts must apply a traditional four-factor test when evaluating requests for injunctive relief brought by the National...more
On June 13, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney (National Labor Relations Board), No. 23-367, rejected the arguments of the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) to relax the standard that a...more
The National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB/the Board) burden to secure injunctions against employers has been significantly raised following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in a case involving Starbucks. On June 13, 2024,...more
In an 8-1 decision involving Starbucks, the Supreme Court last week held that district courts must apply the traditional four-factor test for preliminary injunctions to injunctions sought by the National Labor Relations Board...more
On June 13, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States made it harder for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to win injunctive relief against employers accused of unfair labor practices. The Court held in Starbucks...more
Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, Regional Director of Region 15 of the National Labor Relations Board, decided on June 13, 2024, arose out of the discharge of several Starbucks employees who formed a union organizing committee...more
The Supreme Court Rejects a Watered-Down Approach to Preliminary Injunctions - On June 13, 2024, the United States Supreme Court held that when considering the National Labor Relation Board’s (the “Board” or “NLRB”)...more
In Starbucks v. McKinney, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) must meet the same standard as other ordinary litigants in order to obtain an injunction from the...more