NLRB Defends Rule Against Overbroad Subpoenas
Jared Odessky, arguing for the NLRB, maintained that without constraints on overly broad subpoenas, employers could pry into workers’ private lives without consequences. But the judges were unconvinced.
Higginson pointed out that the subpoenas, commanding workers to appear before the administrative judge, bore the NLRB’s own seal. Starbucks argued that it had relied on the agency’s process—only to be punished for using it.
“It’s hard to see how a board-issued subpoena becomes the employer’s wrongdoing,” Higginson said.
Odessky countered that while the subpoena came through the board’s machinery, Starbucks initiated it, and the action had “a chilling effect” on workers involved in the dispute.
Starbucks Says the Board Is Rewriting the Rules
Representing Starbucks, Amy Mason Saharia of Williams & Connolly LLP accused the NLRB of inventing a “per se test” that turns ordinary discovery friction into an automatic unfair labor practice. She told the panel that the board’s stance effectively weaponizes routine information-gathering.
