New York Starbucks employees Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam have completed their briefing with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in a significant lawsuit challenging the structure of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The case, supported by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, argues that the NLRB’s structure violates the U.S. Constitution.
The lawsuit highlights issues similar to those raised during the Trump Administration’s attempts to reform the NLRB. President Trump had dismissed NLRB Board Member Gwynne Wilcox, criticizing removal protections that are also targeted in this lawsuit for constitutional violations.
Initially filed by Cortes and later joined by Karam, the suit claims that the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 infringes upon Article II of the Constitution by protecting NLRB Board Members from presidential removal at will. The appeal challenges a District Court decision which dismissed the lawsuit due to lack of legal standing without addressing whether the Labor Board’s structure aligns with constitutional requirements.
With all briefs submitted, oral arguments are anticipated soon. A favorable ruling for Cortes and Karam could potentially increase accountability within the Board towards employees’ rights.
The case arose after Cortes’ April 2023 petition for a decertification election at her Buffalo-area Starbucks store was denied by NLRB Region 3. The denial cited unfair labor practice allegations against Starbucks Corporation made by SBWU union officials, despite no connection to Cortes’ request. Similarly, Karam’s petition for a vote on union removal at his store faced rejection under similar circumstances.
Mark Mix, President of National Right to Work Foundation, stated: “This case demonstrates the direct harm caused to workers rights by unaccountable and biased NLRB bureaucrats that have stifled attempts to remove unwanted union representation.” He added: “We are proud that the very legal arguments first made by Foundation attorneys in this case have now been utilized by President Trump to rein in the biased Biden NLRB.”
The outcome of this case could influence future interpretations of federal labor law concerning its compliance with constitutional mandates.
