Trump NLRB Member Denies Violating Ethics Pledge in Vote Against Obama Labor Ruling
“There is a critical difference between cases that involve the same parties and those that involve the same issues. For the purpose of the presidential pledge, the former requires recusal and the latter does not,” NLRB Member William Emanuel's lawyer, Dwight Bostwick, chairman of Zuckerman Spaeder, said in a letter to the labor board.
March 23, 2018 at 03:54 PM
5 minute read
An attorney for William Emanuel argues that the Trump-appointed National Labor Relations Board member did not violate the White House ethics pledge when he voted last year to undo an Obama-era employment rule that his former law firm Littler Mendelson was trying to scrap.
But the NLRB inspector general said in a new report that Emanuel's vote in the case, Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors, violated an executive order that prohibits appointees from participating in certain matters tied to previous employment for two years after confirmation.
Emanuel, a former shareholder in Littler's Los Angeles office, had been a board member for 20 days before beginning his participation in the Hy-Brand case. An earlier inspector general's report said Emanuel should not have voted in the Hy-Brand matter because Littler represented a party in a related dispute at the board that also confronted the scope of “joint employment” liability.
The NLRB's Republican majority, including Emanuel, used the Hy-Brand case to overturn an Obama-era ruling—in Browning-Ferris Industries—that expanded the scope of liability for franchisors and contractors for labor violations. Emanuel's conflict forced the board to erase its ruling, keeping in place—for now—the broader Obama-era standard.
David Berry, the NLRB inspector general, said an investigation substantiated that Emanuel violated the presidential ethics pledge. But Berry's report did not substantiate allegations that Emanuel provided false information either to Congress or to the inspector general's office. Berry reported that Emanuel showed a “genuine lack of recall” that Littler had represented a client in the Browning-Ferris joint-employment case at the board.
Dwight BostwickEmanuel's attorney, Zuckerman Spaeder chairman Dwight Bostwick in Washington, said in a March 22 letter to Berry that “we see no legal or factual basis” supporting the conclusion that Emanuel violated the presidential ethics pledge.
“There is a critical difference between cases that involve the same parties and those that involve the same issues. For the purpose of the presidential pledge, the former requires recusal and the latter does not,” Bostwick wrote.
Bostwick said Berry's finding against Emanuel “has the potential to bedevil and frustrate this agency for years to come. Undoubtedly, this decision will be used to 'weaponize' the ethics rules for the purpose of improperly excluding presidential appointees from doing their jobs they were sworn to do.”
He continued: “The implications for the NLRB's ethics office and the recusal process are dramatic.” Bostwick said the NLRB's ethics office “will now need to review all potential issue preclusion conflicts before, during and after each NLRB decision. The question will no longer be the simple one now asked at the outset of a case: 'Did the member or his/her former employer previously represent one of these parties before the NLRB?'”
Bostwick said Emanuel, to the best of his recollection, “was not aware, while working at Littler, that his firm represented any party in” the Browning-Ferris Industries dispute at the board.
“With so many attorneys working at Littler across so many geographical offices, no single attorney is aware of more than a fraction of that firm's representations,” Bostwick wrote in his letter to Berry on Thursday.
Bostwick also questioned why nobody at the NLRB ethics office questioned Emanuel's participation in the Hy-Brand case at the time of the deliberations last year.
“Not a single person at the NLRB thought Member Emanuel's recusal was required—and for good reason,” Bostwick wrote. The presidential ethics pledge, he continued, would have required Emanuel to sit on the sides only if he or his firm had represented a party in the case in front of him.
➤➤ 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.
Bostwick asked the NLRB to solicit the views of the White House counsel's office “in light of their interest in matters impacting presidential appointees.”
Democratic U.S. Rep. Bobby Scott of Virginia called for a panel to investigate Emanuel and the swirling claims of an ethics violation. Democratic members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee have spotlighted these ethical issues regarding Emanuel.
Trump's latest nominee to the labor board, John Ring of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, vowed at his confirmation hearing this month not to “repeat” the ethics conflict dogging Emanuel.
“I do not want to be in the position Member Emanuel finds himself in and I don't want to put a cloud over the NLRB,” Ring said at his hearing.
Read more:
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 AllHolland & Knight, Akin, Crowell, Barnes and Day Pitney Add to DC Practices
3 minute read'There Is No Time to Waste': Matt Gaetz Withdraws From AG Nomination
3 minute readRead the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
- 2'It Refreshes Me': King & Spalding Privacy Leader Doubles as Equestrian Champ
- 3Class Action Filed Against Houston Health Savings Account Firm for Allegedly Confiscating Client Funds
- 4These 2 Lawyers Just Became Florida Judges
- 5'Disease-Causing Bacteria': Colgate and Tom’s of Maine Face Toothpaste Class Action
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