NLRB Bid for Labor Injunction Meets Seventh Circuit Pushback (1)

The National Labor Relations Board’s quest for a temporary bargaining order against a truck dealership and related staffing firms ran headlong into resistance from a pair of Republican-appointed appeals court judges.

The two GOP judges hinted during oral argument Tuesday at the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit that the US Supreme Court raised the bar for what qualifies as irreparable harm justifying an injunction against an employer.

A ruling against the NLRB would further a partisan split on the impact of the high court’s 2024 decision in Starbucks v. McKinney, which diminished the board’s ability to obtain temporary court orders while administrative cases proceed. An agency loss would also weaken one of its most effective tools to protect workers’ rights.

Getting a10(j) injunction—named after the National Labor Relations Act section permitting the NLRB to go directly to court—prevents harm that can’t be fixed once the board eventually rules, which can take years.

Judge Frank Easterbrook, a Reagan appointee, focused on the effect of the Supreme Court’s recent 10(j) ruling—which he repeatedly insisted should be referred to as Starbucks and not McKinney.

He pressed NLRB attorney Laura Bandini about whether the workers’ loss of union representation due to the companies’ allegedly unlawful withdrawal of recognition qualified as irreparable harm.

“That sounds like an argument that employees are irreparably harmed in every case where the regional director brings a 10(j) proceeding,” Easterbrook said. “I don’t think that’s consistent with what the Supreme Court said in Starbucks, which is that the standard approach for injunctive relief applies in labor law cases.”

Searching for Extraordinary

Bandini responded that the Seventh Circuit has long applied an inference of irreparable harm in these types of cases.

“We did a lot of things before Starbucks, you need to address Starbucks,” he replied.

In Starbucks, the Supreme Court rejected the two-factor tests some courts used for 10(j) cases and embraced a four-factor test that the Seventh Circuit had already been using, Bandini said. The high court even cited the Seventh Circuit’s 2001 decision in Bloedorn v. Francisco Foods, Inc. as an example of a court using the correct standard to assess 10(j) petitions, she said.

“But what about, Ms. Bandini, the Supreme Court has emphasized this is an extraordinary measure, a preliminary injunction,” said Judge Rebecca Taibleson, a Trump appointee. “And it seems to me the harm you’ve identified, which is undermining the union’s connections with these employees, is simply the mine-run harm in any NLRB labor dispute case.”

In her responses to Easterbrook and Taibleson, Bandini pointed back to the Supreme Court’s opinion in Starbucks, saying it didn’t disturb Seventh Circuit precedent applying an inference of harm in 10(j) cases.

Labor Dispute

The Seventh Circuit case arose from the NLRB’s 10(j) petition against M&K Truck Centers—a trade name for a family of truck dealerships with common ownership—and two labor-leasing entities, Laborforce LLC and M&K Employee Services, that it allegedly created for the purposes of avoiding union bargaining obligations.

The agency brought charges against the companies as joint employers and alter egos, alleging that they unlawfully withdrew recognition from an International Association of Machinists affiliate and refused to bargain with the union.

Judge Virginia Kendall, a George W. Bush appointee to the Northern District of Illinois, denied the petition. She found that the NLRB failed all four parts of the test for winning an injunction, which includes the agency’s need to show irreparable harm.

Kendall’s opinion and Seventh Circuit briefing refer to the companies collectively as “Laborforce.”

The circuit panel hearing the case also included Judge Nancy Maldonado, a Biden appointee.

The companies were represented by James Eckhart of Scopelitis, Garvin, Light, Hanson & Feary PC.

The case is Hamada v. Laborforce, LLC, 7th Cir., No. 25-03110, oral argument held 5/12/26.