Vermont Information Processing, Inc. v. NLRB

── Vermont Information Processing, Inc. v. NLRB ── Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Date: May 26, 2026 Category: General United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued October 15, 2025 Decided May 26, 2026 No. 24-1360 VERMONT INFORMATION PROCESSING, INC., PETITIONER v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, RESPONDENT CHRISTOPHER BENDEL, ET AL., INTERVENORS Consolidated with 24-1375 On Petition for Review and Cross-Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board Stephen D. Ellis argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Carl “Ott” Lindstrom. Tillman J. Breckenridge entered an appearance.  2 Gregoire Sauter, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Ruth E. Burdick, Deputy Associate General Counsel, Meredith Jason, Assistant General Counsel, and Usha Dheenan, Supervisory Attorney. Before: MILLETT, WALKER and PAN, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge PAN. Opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part filed by Circuit Judge WALKER. PAN, Circuit Judge: Employees often wonder how much money their coworkers are making. Such information might help them negotiate salary raises, serve as a point of comparison when seeking other employment, or simply satisfy their curiosity. Sharing salary information among employees is a protected activity under the National Labor Relations Act. In this case, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) determined that Vermont Information Processing, Inc. (VIP) illegally fired four employees for creating and disseminating a salary-sharing spreadsheet. The Board ordered VIP to offer the employees reinstatement and to compensate them financially. VIP petitions for review of that order, while the NLRB cross- applies for enforcement. We hold that substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that VIP illegally fired one of the employees, Christopher Bendel. But with respect to the other three workers, the Board impermissibly broadened its theory of liability to include an additional consideration beyond the scope of the NLRB General Counsel’s complaint against the company. We therefore grant each petition in part, deny each petition in part, and remand for further proceedings.  3 I. Factual Background VIP is a software company that services the beverage industry. It employs software engineers to build and maintain applications used by its customers, and it organizes those engineers into small software-development teams. In February 2022, VIP began rolling out a restructuring plan. As part of the roll-out, software engineer Christopher Bendel met with his supervisor, Sam Graefe, to discuss how the restructuring would affect Bendel’s role. The meeting did not go well. Bendel was dissatisfied with the new position that management had designed for him and expressed his concerns to Graefe. He ended the conversation abruptly and then called Graefe’s supervisor, Director of Development Christopher McGinty, to discuss his concerns. Prior to those conversations, Bendel had informed both Graefe and McGinty that “he had offers from other companies.” J.A. 851. When Graefe and McGinty compared notes about their interactions with Bendel, Graefe noted that Bendel “didn’t seem too happy about our conversation,” while McGinty wrote that it “wasn’t a pretty conversation.” S.J.A. 4–6. Later that day, Bendel messaged another software engineer, Kaleb Noble, on VIP’s Google Workspace platform. Bendel described his meeting with Graefe as a “shitshow” and claimed that he had “hung up on [Graefe].”1 J.A. 1137–39. During that conversation, Noble asked Bendel, “Do you mind me asking your salary . . . ?” J.A. 1141. Bendel i