DOJ Argues Against Extending Reach of 'Janus' Ruling
U.S. solicitor general's office says justices should decline the invitation from In-N-Out Burger to expand the reach of a union ruling to other workplace disputes.
January 28, 2019 at 04:46 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
The U.S. Justice Department is urging the Supreme Court to turn down a petition that seeks to broaden a ruling last term against labor unions to reach other workplace disputes, including rules about what buttons and pins employees are allowed to wear.
The Justice Department asked the court to reject restaurant chain In-N-Out Burger's argument that the Supreme Court's ruling in June striking down mandatory “fair share” fees for public-sector unions should apply to a dispute over a company uniform policy for employees.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit struck down a rule that prohibited employees at the California-based burger chain from wearing any insignia on their uniforms, including “Fight for 15” buttons advocating for a minimum-wage boost. Lawyers for In-N-Out Burger, represented by Littler Mendelson, contend the Fifth Circuit decision, tied to a workplace dispute at a burger joint in Austin, Texas, unlawfully compels the company to endorse ideas and speech it finds objectionable.
The company's attorneys pointed to the Supreme Court's divided ruling last term in Janus v. AFSME, which said public-sector unions can't force the collection of so-called fair share fees from nonmembers. “The NLRB is compelling the employer to endorse and/or subsidize a pro union message by allowing 'Fight for 15' buttons to appear on the employer's official uniform,” Littler Mendelson shareholder Bruce Sarchet in Sacramento, counsel of record, wrote in a petition at the Supreme Court. Sarchet did not respond to a request for comment Monday.
U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco, opposing the Littler Mendelson petition, said the justices should let lower courts further examine the Janus decision.
“Indeed, lower courts have had just over six months to consider the scope of Janus, and few decisions have yet applied it outside the agency-fee context in which it arose. Further percolation on this issue is plainly warranted,” Francisco wrote.
➤➤ Get employment law news and commentary straight to your in-box with Labor of Law, a new Law.com briefing. Learn more and sign up here.
The case at the high court stems from 2015, when employees at an In-N-Out Burger in Austin wore “Fight for 15” pins on their uniforms. The company argued that its employees are subject to uniform rules that prevent any type of pin or sticker.
The Fifth Circuit noted that the restaurant chain requires its employees to wear company-issued buttons twice a year, one for Christmas holiday and another that solicits donations to the In-N-Out foundation focusing on preventing child abuse and neglect. “As the board observed, the Christmas and In-N-Out Foundation buttons are appreciably larger and 'significantly more conspicuous' than the 'Fight for $15' buttons,” the appeals court said.
The Justice Department said the National Labor Relations Board “and the court of appeals correctly applied settled law to the facts of this case.” The department and NLRB, quoting a 1945 Supreme Court ruling, said the “right of employees to wear union insignia” or apparel related to issues such as wages or working conditions “has long been recognized as a reasonable and legitimate form of union activity.”
Littler Mendelson's Sarchet said in his petition that “whatever the merits of the board's compelling employers to allow associates to convey such a pro union message prior to Janus, that policy must be revisited now to avoid violation of employer first amendment rights.”
State and federal courts are still exploring the reach of the Supreme Court's decision in Janus.
The Justice Department, then under the leadership of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, had urged the justices to overturn decades-old precedent to rule that public-sector unions could not force nonmembers to pay “fair share fees.” The divided Supreme Court, led by Justice Samuel Alito Jr., concluded those fees violated the First Amendment speech rights of nonunion members.
The In-N-Out Burger dispute at the Supreme Court has not been set for any conference, and any decision on whether the case will be taken up could be months away.
Read more:
Justices Revive Challenge to Mandatory Bar Association Fees
Overturning Precedent, Justices Restrict Labor Union Power to Collect Fees
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
© 2025 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 AllLitigators of the Week: A Knockout Blow to Latest FCC Net Neutrality Rules After ‘Loper Bright’
An ‘Indiana Jones Moment’: Mayer Brown’s John Nadolenco and Kelly Kramer on the 10-Year Legal Saga of the Bahia Emerald
Litigators of the Week: A Win for Homeless Veterans On the VA's West LA Campus
'The Most Peculiar Federal Court in the Country' Comes to Berkeley Law
Trending Stories
- 15th Circuit Considers Challenge to Louisiana's Ten Commandments Law
- 2Crocs Accused of Padding Revenue With Channel-Stuffing HEYDUDE Shoes
- 3E-discovery Practitioners Are Racing to Adapt to Social Media’s Evolving Landscape
- 4The Law Firm Disrupted: For Office Policies, Big Law Has Its Ear to the Market, Not to Trump
- 5FTC Finalizes Child Online Privacy Rule Updates, But Ferguson Eyes Further Changes
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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