US judge rejects auto parts maker's challenge to NLRB structure
By Daniel Wiessner
Sept 9 (Reuters) -A federal judge in Detroit on Monday said an auto parts manufacturer is likely to lose its lawsuit challenging the structure of the National Labor Relations Board and refused to block the board's administrative case against the company from moving forward.
U.S. District Judge Laurie Michelson ruled that U.S. Supreme Court precedent from nearly a century ago foreclosed Yapp USA Automotive System's claims that the board's administrative law judges and its five members are improperly shielded from at-will removal by the president.
Michelson, an appointee of Democratic former President Barack Obama, also said the board's ability to order employers to compensate workers subjected to illegal labor practices does not violate the right to a jury trial granted by the Seventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Michelson denied Yapp's motion to block a board case from moving forward in which the company is accused of firing a union supporter and engaging in other unlawful conduct in the time leading up to a 2023 union election at its factory in Romulus, Michigan.
An NLRB spokeswoman declined to comment.
A lawyer for Tennessee-based Yapp did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Shortly after Michelson issued her ruling, the company filed a notice of appeal and asked the judge to stay the board's administrative case pending the outcome of the appeal.
At least 20 other companies, including Elon Musk's rocket maker SpaceX, Starbucks, Amazon, Trader Joe's and Macy's, are challenging the NLRB's structure or its enforcement powers in pending lawsuits and administrative cases.
Michelson's ruling creates a split with two judges in Texas who in July said there was merit to similar claims against the NLRB brought by SpaceX and pipeline operator Energy Transfer.
Those judges, who are both appointees of Republican former President Donald Trump, said they were bound by a 2022 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Jarkesy v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that said SEC administrative judges were unconstitutionally insulated from removal. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Jarkesy ruling on other grounds in June and did not reach the issue of restrictions on removal.
But the Ohio-based 6th Circuit, which covers Michigan, in a separate 2022 case upheld removal protections for administrative judges with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Michelson on Monday said that the ruling made clear that administrative judges can be shielded from at-will removal if they only make non-final recommendations to agencies rather than issuing final, binding decisions.
"NLRB ALJs fit comfortably within that description," she wrote.
Michelson also cited a 1935 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Humphrey's Executor v. United States that said removal restrictions for members of the Federal Trade Commission were constitutional. The Supreme Court is currently considering a petition asking it to overrule Humphrey's Executor in a case involving the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
The case is Yapp USA Automotive Systems v. NLRB, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, No. 2:24-cv-12173.
For Yapp: R. Michael Azzi of Warner Norcross & Judd
For the NLRB: Michael Dale
Read more:
Amazon challenges US labor board's structure in lawsuit over union election
NLRB, Macy's duel over US Supreme Court ruling's impact on agency powers
US judge unlikely to block NLRB case pending challenge to agency's powers
SpaceX wins block on US labor board case over severance agreements
US judge blocks NLRB case against energy firm challenging agency's structure
NLRB's Abruzzo hits back at 'low-road' companies challenging agency's structure
SEC in-house judges violate right to jury trial, appeals court rules
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
