Starbucks’ National Injunction in Doubt as Judge Revisits Order

The fate of Starbucks Corp.’s nationwide cease-and-desist order is in flux and likely will be decided after a federal judge in Michigan meets Thursday with the National Labor Relations Board, the company, and a labor union representing the coffee chain’s workers.

US District Judge Mark Goldsmith muddied the future of his extraordinary order against Starbucks—which called on the company to refrain from terminating workers for union support or violating their organizing rights at any store in the US—less than a week after he issued it.

Goldsmith, an Obama appointee, vacated his Feb. 17 injunction and legal opinion Wednesday because they contained “certain errors,” saying he’ll “issue a revised opinion and order and a revised order for injunctive relief.”

Scheduling a status conference to discuss the issue before issuing an amended opinion hints at potentially substantive changes to his order, raising the possibility that the judge could pare back the restrictions on Starbucks.

The nationwide order appeared to be unprecedented for the special court orders, known as 10(j) injunctions, that the NLRB can obtain to halt employer conduct while underlying unfair labor practice proceedings are ongoing at the agency, labor lawyers told Bloomberg Law.

“I’ve never seen a 10(j) injunction like it,” said John Lovett, a management-side attorney with Frost Brown Todd LLP who’s been practicing labor law since 1981.

The order essentially created a new scheme for litigating allegations of anti-union discrimination, making “a court in Michigan a super court over Starbucks’ response to union organizing,” Lovett said.

Any 10(j) injunction permits the NLRB to initiate contempt proceedings to seek monetary penalties if an employer violates its terms, which is a powerful tool because normally the board lacks the ability to levy penalties and must go to a court to enforce its own orders.

The order against Starbucks had opened that process for a broad range of alleged misconduct across the country, from firings and discipline for union support to threats and promises of benefits to discourage organizing.

“We are pleased the court is pursuing a further review of the opinion and order issued, and maintain that injunctive relief is unwarranted while the merits of the case are fully adjudicated,” Starbucks spokesman Andrew Trull said in a statement.

An NLRB spokeswoman declined to comment. Lawyers for Starbucks Workers United didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The case is Kerwin v. Starbucks Corp., E.D. Mich., No. 22-12761, status conference 2/23/23.