Skip to main content

In-N-Out Burger Asks United States Supreme Court to Vacate Fifth Circuit Decision to Allow "Fight for 15" Buttons on Work Uniforms


Last year, the Fifth Circuit issued a much anticipated decision in the In-N-Out v. National Labor Relations Board case.  That case arose out of a dispute over an employee's placement of a "Fight for 15" button on his work uniform.  As In-N-Out argued, it had a long history of not allowing employees to alter their uniforms.  In-N-Out pointed out that it had a decades old uniform policy that dictated the hats, hair, shirts, undergarments, jackets, pants, name tags/pins, aprons, socks/shoes, jewelry, fingernails, makeup/facial features, sunglasses, and prescribed transition lenses, personal hygiene, and tattoos of its workers.  Consequently, In-N-Out stated that the employee that placed a "Fight for 15" button on his work uniform was in violation of the company's uniform standard and had to take it off.  The employee filed an unfair labor practice charge and stated that he was protected under the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA") and In-N-Out could not lawfully force him to remove the button.  The Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") and Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals both held that In-N-Out's ban on employees adding items to their uniforms violated the NLRA.  The ALJ and Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals further held that neither the public image nor food safety concerns justified In-N-Out's ban on the buttons.

Unsurprisingly, In-N-Out filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court in mid September.  The company based its petition on several grounds, including a claim that the Fifth Circuit failed to reconcile its ruling with the Supreme Court's ruling in Janus v. AFSCME (which held that the government cannot compel private citizens to endorse or subsidize messages they do not agree with), that the Fifth Circuit failed to address a recent Supreme Court decision which introduced a new legal standard for evaluation of employer workplace policies, and the Fifth Circuit also erred in its application of the "public image" prong of the special circumstances doctrine.

As of this writing, the Supreme Court has not chosen whether or not to accept the petition.  An extension was given to the Solicitor General until January 24, 2019 to file a response.  I would not expect much activity on this until after that date.  Once a response is filed, it will be circulated among the Justices for review and a decision will then be made on whether to accept the petition.  Stay tuned.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more