4th Circuit invalidates NLRB poster rule
The 4th Circuit has invalidated a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) rule that had employers up in arms.
June 17, 2013 at 07:34 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The 4th Circuit has invalidated a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) rule that had employers up in arms.
Last week, the court struck down a NLRB rule that required employers to hang posters in workplaces communicating to employees their right to unionize. The NLRB instituted the rule in 2011, to the dismay of employers, who believed the requirement violated their free speech rights.
The 4th Circuit agreed on Friday, the second court in the past two months to decide that the requirement was unlawful. The D.C. Circuit ruled similarly last month.
The ruling, some experts believe, calls into question the NLRB's authority to create rules. A Proskauer Rose lawyer told Thomson Reuters the ruling created a “dividing line” between the NLRB's reactive and reactive rulemaking.
“The courts are going to look very critically at rules that are proactive, whereas I think they'll give the board more leeway with respect to rules that are reactive,” Ronald Meisburg said. Meisburg is the board's former general counsel.
When the NLRB first announced its right-to-unionize poster requirement in 2010, it received more than 7,000 comments.
Read more about this story on Thomson Reuters.
For more recent InsideCounsel stories and columns about the NLRB, see:
The 4th Circuit has invalidated a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) rule that had employers up in arms.
Last week, the court struck down a NLRB rule that required employers to hang posters in workplaces communicating to employees their right to unionize. The NLRB instituted the rule in 2011, to the dismay of employers, who believed the requirement violated their free speech rights.
The 4th Circuit agreed on Friday, the second court in the past two months to decide that the requirement was unlawful. The D.C. Circuit ruled similarly last month.
The ruling, some experts believe, calls into question the NLRB's authority to create rules. A
“The courts are going to look very critically at rules that are proactive, whereas I think they'll give the board more leeway with respect to rules that are reactive,” Ronald Meisburg said. Meisburg is the board's former general counsel.
When the NLRB first announced its right-to-unionize poster requirement in 2010, it received more than 7,000 comments.
Read more about this story on Thomson Reuters.
For more recent InsideCounsel stories and columns about the NLRB, see:
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 AllLatham, Kirkland Alums Land the Top GC Posts—Here's What It Means for Business Generation
10 minute readEx-Twitter Exec Sues for $20M, Says Musk Fired Her as 'Petty Retribution'
Policy Wonks' Obsession: What Will Tuesday's Election Mean for FTC Firebrand Khan?
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4Meet the Lawyers on Kamala Harris' Transition Team
- 5Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
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