McKinney v. Starbucks Corp., 77 F.4th 391 (6th Cir. 2023)
Questions presented
Whether courts must evaluate the NLRB's requests for section 10(j) injunctions under the traditional, stringent four-factor test for preliminary injunctions or under some other more lenient standard.
whether the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits
whether the plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief
whether the balance of equities between the plaintiff and defendant justifies an injunction
whether the public interest would be disserved by an injunction
This is known as the Winter test.
Under section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, when the NLRB is considering a complaint about unfair labor practices, it is empowered to petition a district court "for appropriate temporary relief" while the complaint is pending.
Lower courts were split on whether the Winter test applies to 10(j) injunctions. The Fourth, Seventh, Eight, and Ninth Circuits had held that the NLRB needed to satisfy the Winter test, whereas the Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits had held that the NLRB only needed to show "reasonable cause to believe that unfair labor practices have occurred" and that an injunctions would be "just and proper".[2]
Factual background
In 2022, Starbucks fired seven employees who were trying to unionize one of the company's stores in Memphis, Tennessee. Starbucks said that it fired them because they had violated company rules by bringing a television crew into the store after hours. The workers, who called themselves the Memphis Seven, claimed that Starbucks had selectively enforced its policy to retaliate against them for their legally protected union-organizing, filing a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board.[3]
Attorneys for the Board petitioned a district court to issue an injunction requiring Starbucks to reinstate the fired employees while the Board was considering the complaint.[3]
