Case Explained: Starbucks Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-23 The Fifth Circuit granted enforcement of the National Labor Relations Board’s order in part and denied it in part. The court upheld findings that Starbucks managers made coercive threats against employee Ramirez, threatened employee Untaran by suggesting benefits would be withheld during negotiations, and coercively interrogated Untaran regarding his union support. Conversely, the court denied enforcement of findings that Starbucks coerced employees Sosa and Pichardo through statements about futility or other job availability, and denied enforcement of the Board’s conclusion that Starbucks unlawfully discharged Untaran for engaging in protected union activity. The court applied the “substantial evidence” standard of review under 29 U.S.C. § 160(e), affirming agency factual findings only if a reasonable person could have reached the same conclusion based on the record considered as a whole. Regarding Section 8(a)(1) violations, the court held that threats are unlawful if an employee could reasonably conclude the employer is threatening economic reprisal. The court found substantial evidence for Untaran and Ramirez because their conversations involved specific statements about withholding existing benefits or taking punitive bargaining positions. However, the court ruled there was no substantial evidence for Sosa’s claim because the promised pay increase was not part of an “established wage or compensation system,” nor was there evidence to support Pichardo’s futility claim without a concurrent threat that the employer would take action to render union support futile. Regarding Untaran’s termination, the court applied the *Arkema* test for Section 8(a)(3) violations, requiring proof that anti-union animus was a motivating factor. The court found the Board’s reliance on timing and comparator analysis insufficient because the comparators cited by the Administrative Law Judge engaged in different types of misconduct or received different disciplinary treatment, meaning timing alone could not support an inference of unlawful animus. Additionally, the court dismissed Starbucks’s appeal regarding the order for a new union election, ruling that representation proceedings do not constitute “final orders” subject to judicial review under the NLRA. As a practical consequence, the NLRB’s order is partially enforced; Starbucks must comply with remedies related to the coercive threats against Ramirez and Untaran, the coercive interrogation of Untaran, and the specific threat against Pichardo regarding better-paying jobs. However, the order for reinstatement, backpay, and compensatory damages related to Untaran’s termination is vacated, and the Board’s order for a new union election remains unenforceable by this court pending a future final order. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.