In today’s News and Commentary, the Eighth Circuit avoids a challenge to Minnesota’s ban on captive audience meetings, an ALJ finds that Starbucks violated the NLRA again, and a US district court certifies a class of behavioral health workers pursuing wage claims.

Yesterday, the Eighth Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction a business group’s challenge to Minnesota’s law banning captive audience meetings. As I noted previously, the business groups suing had argued that the risk of the government’s enforcement of the law was sufficient to overcome sovereign immunity, claiming that Governor Walz had a connection with enforcement of the law. Ultimately, the Court held that because the government had no present intention to enforce the law, the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue, dismissing the claims against the Governor and Commissioner with prejudice and the claim against the Attorney General without prejudice.  

On Tuesday, Administrative Law Judge Christine Dibble found that Starbucks had acted unlawfully by instructing employees to stop posting union materials. In addition, Judge Dibble found the company had disparately enforced its solicitation policy in violation of the Act. She also rejected Starbucks’ argument that the unfair labor charges amounted to serial litigation. An ALJ in Arizona had previously ruled that Starbucks had violated the Act for similar activity. Judge Dibble concluded that the complaint was not an effort to relitigate and distinguished the circumstances from the NLRB’s decision in Jefferson Chemical Co., because the unfair labor practice at issue occurred at a different store in a different geographic location managed independently of other Starbucks locations.

Also Tuesday, Judge Susie Morgan of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana certified a class of behavioral health workers at Acadia LaPlace Holdings LLC and Ochsner-Acadia LLC, both subsidiaries of Acadia Healthcare Co. The workers are pursuing wage claims against the companies. According to Bloomberg Law, the workers had previously most requirements for class certification but had not yet met the predominance and superiority requirements. Judge Morgan concluded that common issues of law or fact predominated over issues affecting individual class members and that proceeding as a class action was superior to other methods due to the likelihood of individual claims resulting in a collection of negative suits. Judge Morgan granted class action certification to pursue causes of action for unjust enrichment and conversion under Louisiana law.