NLRB ruling challenged in light of D.C. Circuit ruling
Last week, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision in which it found that President Obamas recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) last year are invalid.
January 31, 2013 at 05:22 AM
11 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Last week, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision in which it found that President Obama's recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) last year are invalid. In light of the ruling, experts predicted that hundreds of NLRB decisions in the past year could be invalid. Now, a plaintiff has filed the first lawsuit challenging one of the board's 2012 decisions.
On Jan. 25, a three-judge panel for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the president violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate to appoint Sharon Block, Richard Griffin and Terence Flynn to fill vacancies on the NLRB last year. Although the president says he acted properly because the Senate was on a 20-day recess, the court contended that the Senate was technically still in session.
Yesterday, home builder D.R. Horton Inc. asked the 5th Circuit to throw out a January 2012 NLRB decision concerning an arbitration agreement and class action waiver that it required its employees to sign as a condition of their continued employment. In that case, the NLRB found that D.R. Horton's agreement violated Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, which gives employees the right “to engage in … concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.”
D.R. Horton is questioning whether the D.C. Circuit's decision could impact past recess appointments. The company claims that Obama's appointment of Craig Becker to the NLRB in 2010 should also be considered invalid. If the 5th Circuit were to find that Becker's appointment was invalid, then the board had only two members—less than a quorum—when it issued its decision against D.R. Horton last year.
Read more at Thomson Reuters.
For more recent InsideCounsel NLRB coverage:
Last week, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision in which it found that President Obama's recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) last year are invalid. In light of the ruling, experts predicted that hundreds of NLRB decisions in the past year could be invalid. Now, a plaintiff has filed the first lawsuit challenging one of the board's 2012 decisions.
On Jan. 25, a three-judge panel for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the president violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate to appoint Sharon Block, Richard Griffin and Terence Flynn to fill vacancies on the NLRB last year. Although the president says he acted properly because the Senate was on a 20-day recess, the court contended that the Senate was technically still in session.
Yesterday, home builder D.R. Horton Inc. asked the 5th Circuit to throw out a January 2012 NLRB decision concerning an arbitration agreement and class action waiver that it required its employees to sign as a condition of their continued employment. In that case, the NLRB found that D.R. Horton's agreement violated Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, which gives employees the right “to engage in … concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.”
D.R. Horton is questioning whether the D.C. Circuit's decision could impact past recess appointments. The company claims that Obama's appointment of Craig Becker to the NLRB in 2010 should also be considered invalid. If the 5th Circuit were to find that Becker's appointment was invalid, then the board had only two members—less than a quorum—when it issued its decision against D.R. Horton last year.
Read more at Thomson Reuters.
For more recent InsideCounsel NLRB coverage:
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 AllLululemon Faces Legal Fire Over Its DEI Program After Bias Complaints Surface
3 minute readOld Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
Lawsuit Against Amazon Could Reshape E-Commerce Landscape
Trending 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