Starbucks anti-unionization case brought by NLRB narrowed by US appeals court

Starbucks and its lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The NLRB did not immediately respond to similar requests.

Employees at more than 700 Starbucks stores have voted to join unions, and have filed hundreds of complaints with the NLRB accusing the Seattle-based company of illegal labor practices.

The court ruled two days after Starbucks persuaded the federal appeals court in Manhattan to reverse an NLRB finding that it illegally barred workers at a store in Manhattan's Meatpacking District from wearing t-shirts or multiple pins supporting a union.

That court said the NLRB failed to properly balance Starbucks' ability to present its preferred image to customers with employees' right to encourage unionizing.

The New Orleans-based court upheld a finding that Starbucks illegally threatened to deny maternity leave benefits to a pregnant employee if workers unionized.

Circuit Judge Stephen Higginson said statements about the hiring portal and store hours were not "threats of reprisal" because a hiring pause didn't appear to imperil employees' job security, while understaffing might have justified shorter hours. He also said store manager Carmella Neri's statements that she knew about unionization discussions and that employees should keep in mind the impact of a successful vote were not coercive, saying the statements were not "out of the ordinary."

Higginson nonetheless found substantial evidence that the pregnant employee, Maia Cuellar-Serafini, could "reasonably feel" that union activities could reduce her benefits.

A federal appeals court on Friday declined to enforce most of a National Labor Relations Board ruling that Starbucks illegally threatened employees with reprisals for trying to unionize and pretended it was surveilling attempts to organize.