Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Medina's complaint aligns with a similar suit from his colleague Victor Avila. Both lawsuits stem from unfair labor practice charges against Teamsters union officials at their workplace involving illegal threats and unlawful dues demands. They argue their cases should be heard by constitutionally appointed Board officials.

Medina’s lawsuit uniquely contests removal protections for both Board members and Administrative Law Judges (ALJs). It argues that Board members wield significant executive branch authority but are unconstitutionally protected from at-will presidential removal. ALJs are subject to a multi-layered removal process controlled by federal bureaucrats whom the President cannot remove at will, contrary to Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB.

Board members create NLRB policy and review labor cases decided by regional offices, while ALJs conduct hearings in cases where the NLRB prosecutes unions or employers for legal violations.

Foundation-backed Starbucks employees nationwide are also pursuing similar constitutional challenges against the NLRB's structure. Employees like Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam have faced blocked decertification votes due to unproven union allegations of employer meddling.

Cortes and Karam recently appealed a District Court ruling on standing issues to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals without addressing their core constitutional arguments. Another Starbucks employee, Reed Busler, has filed a similar pending lawsuit in Texas.

“For too long, independent-minded employees who challenge union boss coercion that violates federal law have had to pursue their claims with unaccountable NLRB bureaucrats who exercise power in violation of the Constitution,” said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The National Labor Relations Board should not be a union boss-friendly kangaroo court run by powerful bureaucrats who exercise unaccountable power in violation of the Constitution.”