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, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more