The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is making waves by arguing that a recent Supreme Court decision has no bearing on its authority to address unlawful labor practices. This assertion comes in response to a ruling from June in the case of Jarkesy v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which questioned the constitutionality of the SEC’s in-house enforcement actions.
In its filing with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals regarding a dispute with Macy’s, the NLRB contends that the Supreme Court’s decision does not disrupt its historical powers established in a 1930s ruling. The Jarkesy case found that the SEC’s practice of enforcing financial penalties through administrative proceedings violated the right to a jury trial.
The NLRB maintains that its role in remedying worker grievances is fundamentally different from the punitive measures the SEC imposes. The board argues that its goal is to make workers whole rather than to punish employers, emphasizing that the relief it seeks is focused on compensating workers for financial losses incurred due to illegal actions by employers.
Macy’s, however, challenges this perspective. The retailer, contesting an NLRB ruling that found it had unlawfully locked out workers after a strike, argues that the principles from the Jarkesy case should extend to labor disputes, including wrongful termination claims. Macy’s claims that the Supreme Court’s precedent applies not only to financial penalties but also to broader remedies sought by the NLRB.
The 9th Circuit, which is reviewing the case, had requested additional briefs on the Jarkesy decision’s implications. The panel of judges, which includes Jacqueline Nguyen, Patrick Bumatay, and Evan Wallach, will consider how this Supreme Court ruling could influence the NLRB’s enforcement powers.
Recent trends suggest that the Jarkesy ruling could prompt courts to scrutinize and potentially limit the enforcement actions of various agencies. For instance, Comcast recently challenged the Department of Labor’s proceedings on financial whistleblower claims, arguing they are unconstitutional.
In the meantime, the NLRB continues to push for expanded remedies for workers, seeking compensation for direct financial harms caused by illegal labor practices, such as medical expenses and credit card fees incurred due to unlawful firings. This expansion was notably exemplified in the 2022 Thryv Inc. decision, although the 5th Circuit recently overturned this ruling without addressing the broader question of remedy scope.
The ongoing legal battle, Macy’s Inc v. NLRB, highlights a critical junction in the interpretation of labor laws and agency powers, with significant implications for both worker protections and corporate accountability.
