Royal

Supreme Court Sides with Starbucks in Consequential Ruling for Unionization Efforts

June 18, 2024

On Thursday, June 13th, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of Starbucks on a matter relevant to workplaces experiencing unionization efforts. Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney relates to events that occurred in February of 2022, as several employees at a Starbucks storefront in Memphis, Tennessee announced their plans to unionize. As a result, they invited a local news crew to the franchise’s location to discuss their intentions and promote their efforts towards unionization. As a result of this invitation and subsequent interview, Starbucks fired most of the workers in question stating that by conducting interviews at the storefront after hours, they had violated company policy.


As a result of the firings, The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), who oversees unionization efforts, filed a complaint against Starbucks, accusing them of unfair labor practices in attempting to bar unionization efforts. The NLRB simultaneously filed a petition seeking a preliminary injunction for the duration of the proceedings that would, among other requests, require Starbucks to reinstate the employees terminated as a result of unionization attempts. Starbucks challenged the NLRB’s issuance of a preliminary injunction, with a district court subsequently siding with the NLRB and issuing a temporary injunction which required Starbucks to rehire the affected employees just 6 months after their termination. Starbucks proceeded to appeal this decision at the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, who ultimately upheld the forementioned ruling leading Starbucks to appeal with the Supreme Court.


The Court’s ruling decided a question that has split among districts, which is the standard by which preliminary injunctions are granted in response to a NLRB petition. The Court rejected a rule used by half of districts, instead opting to adopt a stricter test by which the NLRB must adhere to be granted a preliminary injunction during labor proceedings. This stricter test has four steps, that 1) the NLRB must be likely to succeed on the merits, 2) that the union will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief (i.e. a preliminary injunction), 3) that the balance of equities tips in the NLRB’s favor and 4) that a preliminary injunction is in the public interest. This is contrast to the more lenient standard favored by other courts, the only question being whether the NLRB’s request for preliminary injunction has reasonable cause to believe that unfair labor practices had occurred. The Court’s imposition of a stricter standard will most likely make it harder to challenge anti-union actions and put a damper on unionization activities.


If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

Medical Marijuana Use Protected from Adverse Action

April 2, 2025
A recent court decision in Pennsylvania offers clarification that employers cannot take adverse action for marijuana use against individuals who possess medical marijuana cards, at least under Pennsylvania’s Medical Marijuana Act. In this decision, an individual received a conditional job offer for a non-safety sensitive position, contingent on a drug test. The individual disclosed his state-certified use of medical marijuana to treat anxiety, depression and ADHD, assuring the employer that it wouldn’t affect job performance or safety. After a positive test for marijuana, the employer rescinded the offer, citing safety concerns. The individual sued the employer under the Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana Act (“MMA”) and disability discrimination under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”). The Court allowed the individual’s claim under the MMA to proceed, potentially creating substantial precedent for tolerance of individual medical marijuana use in non-safety sensitive positions. The Court specifically noted that MMA protects individuals not just from discrimination based on card holder status, but also for adverse actions based solely on lawful medical marijuana use. The Court otherwise dismissed the individual’s claims under the PHRA because the PHRA does not require employers to accommodate medical marijuana use, even if it is prescribed for a legitimate medical condition. While a Pennsylvania decision, this decision potentially has rippling implications that will affect Massachusetts employers and employers in states where medical marijuana use is allowed under state law, which is allowed in some manner in 44 states. Employer Takeaways Understand State-Specific Protections : Laws regarding medical marijuana use differ widely across states. In some areas, cardholder status is protected, while in others, it is not. Employers operating in multiple states must ensure their hiring and accommodation practices comply with the relevant laws in each state. Base Safety Concerns on Job-Specific Evidence : General or speculative safety concerns are insufficient, particularly in states with strict employee protections. Safety risks cited should be specific, evidence-based, and directly related to the essential functions of the job. Review Drug Testing and Accommodation Policies: Update your policies to reflect current state laws and clarify how your organization manages disclosures of medical marijuana use, especially during the hiring process .  If you have any queries regarding drug testing or other workplace accommodations following this ruling, it is prudent to contact legal counsel. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

The Royal Law Firm Awarded Finalist of 2025 Best of The Valley Readers’ Poll

March 28, 2025
The Royal Law Firm was a Finalist for Best Law Firm in The Best of The Valley Readers' Poll for 2025, as published by the Valley Advocate! Thank you to everyone who voted for us, and to those of you who trust us to help you in times of need. Click here to check out all of the category winners and finalists.
Share by: