
Henry Green is a student at Harvard Law School.
In today’s News & Commentary, Colorado unions push their state to join Montana in requiring just cause protection and Starbucks seeks to apply recent Supreme Court precedent on free speech to the NLRB’s analysis of employer threats.
The Colorado AFL-CIO and SEIU Local 105 have filed a ballot measure that would make Colorado the second state in the country to mandate just cause protection. Montana has had statewide just cause protection since the 1980’s. As a fascinating article from the Niskanen Center discusses, Montana’s Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act emerged as a legislative compromise after judges created exceptions to the state’s at-will employment scheme that led for large damage awards for fired workers.
The proposed Colorado law would prohibit companies with more than eight employees from firing a worker without just cause, which under the measure’s definition includes the employer’s financial instability or the employee’s substandard performance, neglect, or conviction for a crime of “moral turpitude.” Workers fired without just cause could sue for reinstatement, backpay, and attorney’s fees. The measure comes as Colorado unions are also seeking to pass a senate bill that would eliminate a right-to-work-like measure in the state.
Bloomberg reports that in an argument at the 8th Circuit, attorneys for Starbucks asked the court to apply a recent Supreme Court case on free speech to its analysis of employer threats. If successful, the argument could make it more difficult for the Board to regulate employer speech. Starbucks is challenging a 2024 NLRB ruling that a store manager threatened an employee when the manager implied wage and benefit increases might be on hold if the store organized. Starbucks asked the 8th Circuit to apply the Supreme Court’s standard from Counterman v. Colorado (2023) and hold that the Board must show the manager’s subjective awareness the speech was threatening. An attorney for the NLRB asked the court to instead apply the Gissel Packing standard, which is objective and considers the power imbalance between employee and employer.
In Counterman, a Colorado man was prosecuted for threats made on Facebook. The Supreme Court held that, to find a “true threat” unprotected by the first amendment, the state must show the defendant subjectively knew the statements were threatening. Starbucks argues that based on this decision, the NLRB must show the manager subjectively knew the speech would be viewed as threatening to find a threat. As Bloomberg notes, Apple made similar arguments before the 5th Circuit last month.
Daily News & Commentary
Start your day with our roundup of the latest labor developments. See all
September 9
Ninth Circuit revives Trader Joe’s lawsuit against employee union; new bill aims to make striking workers eligible for benefits; university lecturer who praised Hitler gets another chance at First Amendment claims.
September 8
DC Circuit to rule on deference to NLRB, more vaccine exemption cases, Senate considers ban on forced arbitration for age discrimination claims.
September 7
Another weak jobs report, the Trump Administration's refusal to arbitrate with federal workers, and a district court judge's order on the constitutionality of the Laken-Riley Act.
September 5
Pro-labor legislation in New Jersey; class action lawsuit by TN workers proceeds; a report about wage theft in D.C.
September 4
Eighth Circuit avoids a challenge to Minnesota’s ban on captive audience meetings; ALJ finds that Starbucks violated the NLRA again; and a district court certifies a class of behavioral health workers pursuing wage claims.
September 3
Treasury releases draft list of tipped positions eligible for tax break; Texas court rules against Board's effort to transfer case to California; 9th Circuit rules against firefighters seeking religious exemption to COVID vaccine mandate.