5th Circuit partly enforces NLRB order vs. Starbucks after union dispute

↻Ask Interactive NewsLook for updates to this storyFind out what has changed since this story was published.→

On June 23, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit partially enforced a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) order against Starbucks after a union-organizing dispute at a store in Sylmar, California. The key takeaway for workers and employers: some alleged NLRA violations survived appellate review, while others were removed—especially the parts tied to a claimed unlawful discharge and the “second election” review.

What the Fifth Circuit changed i

In Starbucks Corp. v. NLRB (No. 24-60651), the court’s outcome was enforced in part and denied in part. The opinion states the court:

• Granted enforcement for one coercive-threat claim against Pichardo, a coercive-threat claim against Untaran, and Untaran’s unlawful interrogation finding.
• Denied enforcement for Untaran’s unlawful discharge claim.
• Denied enforcement for coercive-threat claims tied to Sosa and Ramirez.
• Dismissed the NLRB appeal tied to a “second election” remedy for want of jurisdiction.

How the court analyzed manager statements during organizing i

The court treated the NLRB’s “coercive threat” findings differently depending on how well the agency supported its theory with the evidence on the record.

For the Sosa coercive-threat claim, the court said the NLRB’s conclusion was not supported by substantial evidence, including because the decision did not show the promised benefits were part of an “established wage or compensation system.”

For the Untaran side, the court found substantial evidence supporting the NLRB’s finding of coercive interrogation, using a “totality of the circumstances” approach and emphasizing factors like the context of the questioning and what employees could reasonably view as a risk of economic reprisals tied to union support.

What happened to the “second election” i

After the initial election in July 2022, the Board set aside the election and severed the representation case for a second election. When Starbucks sought judicial review, the Fifth Circuit said it lacked jurisdiction to consider that “second election” determination in this posture. The court also noted Starbucks could return to court later if a future NLRB order compels bargaining after the second election.

What to watch next in the NLRB docket

Procedurally, the case now moves forward at the NLRB with boundaries set by the partial enforcement outcome. The NLRB’s weekly summary described the decision as upholding some unlawful-threat findings and the unlawful-interrogation finding, while rejecting the discharge finding and dismissing the “second election” review.

On the NLRB’s public case portal for 31-CA-299464, the docket shows a circuit decision dated June 23, 2026 and a proposed judgment filed July 7, 2026. The representation case portal for 31-RC-296066 shows the matter remains open following the tally issued July 28, 2022.

Practical takeaways for workers and employers i

• For workers: one-on-one manager questioning about union support—and especially questioning paired with statements that could be read as threats to benefits or economic security—can trigger NLRA risk even when employers frame the conversation as “explaining” policy.
• For employers: training matters. The court’s partial enforcement shows that not every manager comment automatically survives review—but enough did here that employers should assume that individualized, union-related conversations can create legal exposure if they sound punitive or coercive.
• For both sides: federal appellate review can remove parts of an NLRB order (including discharge-related theories), and that can shape what remedies the NLRB pursues next after the remand.

Over the coming weeks, the most important “watch” item is how the NLRB implements the court’s partial enforcement—particularly regarding what happens after the Board’s remaining steps and the second-election-related posture.

Sources

• Fifth Circuit opinion (Starbucks Corp. v. NLRB, No. 24-60651)
• NLRB docket: 31-CA-299464 (proposed judgment filed July 7, 2026)

↻Ask Interactive NewsLook for updates to this storyFind out what has changed since this story was published.→

⇄Ask Interactive NewsRelated NewsDive deeper into these stories and how they connect.→

• Woman, 69, dies after Garden Grove hit-and-run; driver arrested
• Fresno votes to reestablish legal-defense fund with conditional $1M
• Thousands of California state workers walk off job in one-day strike
• Riverside plans five-hour Holiday Maker’s Market for Dec. 5