Starbucks v. NLRB

── Starbucks v. NLRB ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Date: April 17, 2026 Category: Agency Case: 24-60500 Document: 159-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/17/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals ____________ Fifth Circuit FILED No. 24-60500 April 17, 2026 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Starbucks Corporation, Petitioner/Cross-Respondent, versus National Labor Relations Board, Respondent/Cross-Petitioner. ______________________________ Petition for Review from an Order of the National Labor Relations Board Agency No. 21-CA-304228 ______________________________ Before Southwick, Higginson, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Stephen A. Higginson, Circuit Judge: The National Labor Relations Board found that Starbucks Corporation violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by successfully obtaining Board-issued subpoenas seeking information protected by Section 7 of the Act. But in reaching that conclusion, the Board applied the wrong legal standard. Rather than evaluating whether Starbucks’ conduct would “tend to be coercive” under “the totality of the circumstances,” NLRB v. Brookwood Furniture, Div. of U.S. Indus., 701 F.2d 452, 459 (5th Cir. 1983), the Board treated National Telephone Directory Corp., 319 NLRB 420 (1995)—a discovery rule governing when subpoenas should Case: 24-60500 Document: 159-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/17/2026 No. 24-60500 be quashed—as dispositive of liability. Because that standard does not answer the question whether an employer has committed an unfair labor practice, we VACATE the Board’s order and REMAND for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. I. This case stems from an earlier NLRB unfair labor practice proceeding concerning Starbucks’ La Quinta, California store. In December 2021, employees there began a union organizing campaign. Shift supervisors Andrea Hernandez and Jazmine Cardenas joined the union organizing committee and openly supported unionization. Workers United (the “Union”) ultimately won the election for certification as the bargaining representative. In May 2022, the Union filed charges alleging unlawful conduct by Starbucks during the organizing campaign. The Board thereafter issued a complaint alleging that Starbucks had impermissibly restricted employees’ discussion of the Union. Starbucks then began preparing its defense. Under the Board’s longstanding rules, however, employers are generally not entitled to prehearing discovery. Beta Steel Corp., 326 NLRB 1267, 1267 n.3 (1998). Instead, they may request subpoenas from the Regional Director to compel attendance and testimony at hearings and production of documents, records, correspondence, or other evidence. 29 C.F.R. § 102.31(a); NLRB, Guide to Board Procedures § 5.3(b) (2023), https://perma.cc/DNB5- 3WNY. 2 Case: 24-60500 Document: 159-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/17/2026 No. 24-60500 Starbucks availed itself of that procedure. It obtained Board-issued subpoenas directed to Cardenas and Hernandez. 1 The subpoenas sought a broad range of materials, including communications with the Union, communications with other employees about Union activity, docu