A Fifth Circuit panel signaled deep skepticism Tuesday toward the National Labor Relations Board’s push to brand Starbucks Corp. with a labor-law violation over what the agency says were sweeping, overreaching subpoenas aimed at pro-union employees—an approach one judge likened to a “liability trap.”
Judges Question Whether the Board Is Manufacturing Fault
U.S. Circuit Judge Stephen Higginson pressed the board’s stance, suggesting it defied common sense: Starbucks asks the government to issue a subpoena, and then the same government penalizes it for the very request it authorized. The NLRB claims Starbucks violated the National Labor Relations Act by issuing subpoenas seeking recordings of store management in La Quinta, California, along with workers’ communications.
“This feels like we’re transforming a simple discovery rule into a preset liability trap,” Judge Higginson said, underscoring his concern that the NLRB was stretching its enforcement powers.
An administrative law judge had dismissed every charge in the original labor dispute. But that didn’t stop the NLRB from circling back, launching a second attempt to prosecute Starbucks—this time based solely on the subpoenas themselves. Judge Higginson noted that the board had already succeeded in quashing the subpoenas in the underlying case.
