D.C. Circuit dismisses NLRB charges against medical center
If the past few months are any indication, it seems the D.C. Circuit has it out for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
April 29, 2013 at 06:17 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
If the past few months are any indication, it seems the D.C. Circuit has it out for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
In January, the appeals court ruled that President Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate and appointed two individuals to fill vacancies on the NLRB in January 2012 during what he thought was a recess break. Since the decision, Republicans have claimed that all the board's decisions have been invalid since the recess appointments. The controversy also has sparked lawsuits challenging 2012 NLRB decisions.
And last week, the D.C. Circuit ruled that the NLRB erred when it found that an Arizona medical center violated labor laws when it threatened employees and fired a worker during a unionization campaign. The medical center's president had told employees that if they voted to unionize, they would no longer be negotiating with him directly. The NLRB found that his statements constituted a threat that negotiations with the medical center would completely stop.
On Friday, the D.C. Circuit dropped two charges against the medical center and kept a third related to retaliation. In its opinion, the court said it was “baffled by the Board's interpretation” of the medical center's president's statement. It also disagreed with the NLRB's finding that the medical center fired an employee for his role in the unionization campaign.
Read Thomson Reuters for more information.
For more recent NLRB news from InsideCounsel, read:
If the past few months are any indication, it seems the D.C. Circuit has it out for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
In January, the appeals court ruled that President Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate and appointed two individuals to fill vacancies on the NLRB in January 2012 during what he thought was a recess break. Since the decision, Republicans have claimed that all the board's decisions have been invalid since the recess appointments. The controversy also has sparked lawsuits challenging 2012 NLRB decisions.
And last week, the D.C. Circuit ruled that the NLRB erred when it found that an Arizona medical center violated labor laws when it threatened employees and fired a worker during a unionization campaign. The medical center's president had told employees that if they voted to unionize, they would no longer be negotiating with him directly. The NLRB found that his statements constituted a threat that negotiations with the medical center would completely stop.
On Friday, the D.C. Circuit dropped two charges against the medical center and kept a third related to retaliation. In its opinion, the court said it was “baffled by the Board's interpretation” of the medical center's president's statement. It also disagreed with the NLRB's finding that the medical center fired an employee for his role in the unionization campaign.
Read Thomson Reuters for more information.
For more recent NLRB news from InsideCounsel, read:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFTC Settles With Security Firm Over AI Claims Under Agency's Compliance Program
6 minute readPeople and Purpose: AbbVie's GC on Leading With Impact and Inspiring Change
7 minute readDigging Deep to Mitigate Risk in Lithium Mine Venture Wins GM Legal Department of the Year Award
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250