Starbucks violated labor law by barring pro-union buttons, DC Circuit rules

A divided U.S. appeals court panel on Thursday said the manager of a Seattle Starbucks store violated federal labor law by telling a barista not to distribute union buttons during her paid breaks.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in the 2-1 decision said that while the manager in 2022 specifically warned the worker not to give buttons to customers, her comments could have discouraged workers from distributing any union paraphernalia, even among themselves, upholding a National Labor Relations Board ruling.

After the manager twice saw the barista give buttons to customers - one of whom worked at a different Starbucks store - she told the worker that she "couldn't be handing out things to customers ... while on work time," according to filings in the case, and that she should pass out buttons "outside of work."

"The board's conclusion that [the manager's] statement was not limited to interactions with customers is supported by substantial evidence," the D.C. Circuit said in an unsigned opinion. The majority included Circuit Judges Sri Srinivasan and J. Michelle Childs.

Circuit Judge Gregory Katsas dissented, saying it was unreasonable to interpret the manager's comments as extending to the distribution of union buttons in non-public areas of the store.

Starbucks spokeswoman Rachel Wall said the company was disappointed with the ruling, and noted that the case involves a single store.

"Nationally, our focus continues to be on supporting our managers to ensure respect of our partners’ rights to organize, freely associate and engage in other lawful activities," Wall said in an emailed statement.

Workers United, which is engaged in a nationwide campaign to organize the company's 9,000 U.S. stores, did not immediately respond to a request for comments.

Workers at more than 400 Starbucks stores have voted to unionize since late 2021. The union has accused Starbucks of scores of labor law violations amid the ongoing campaign, including interrogating and retaliating against union supporters, and the NLRB has ruled against the company in several cases.

In February, Starbucks and Workers United said they had agreed to create a "framework" to guide organizing and collective bargaining and potentially settle many of the pending legal disputes.

Starbucks, meanwhile, is arguing in at least one pending NLRB case that the agency's structure violates the U.S. Constitution. SpaceX, Amazon, Trader Joe's, and several Starbucks baristas who oppose unionizing have made similar claims in lawsuits or NLRB cases.

The U.S. Supreme Court later this year will hear Starbucks' appeal of a 6th Circuit ruling that said the company must rehire seven employees at a Memphis, Tennessee store who were fired amid an organizing campaign.

Starbucks has asked the justices to adopt a higher bar for the NLRB to win court orders requiring employers to reinstate fired workers or take other steps to address alleged illegal labor practices.

The case is Starbucks Corp v. NLRB, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, No. 23-1171.

For Starbucks: Maurice Baskin of Littler Mendelson

For the NLRB: Greg Lauro

Read more:

Starbucks agrees to US union organizing 'framework'

Starbucks case at US Supreme Court could limit labor board's key legal tool

US Supreme Court to hear dispute over Starbucks firing pro-union workers

Anti-union Starbucks worker challenges structure of US labor board