Top Ten NLRB Cases To Watch in 2025
The NLRB Cases That Matter: Make It All Make Sense
A handy "cheat sheet" of ten of the most pivotal cases that have, and will continue to shape labor relations.
On January 5, Time Magazine published a Q&A with Jennifer Abruzzo. Abruzzo was at the time, and still is, the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) General Council (GC). By the time you read this, that may or may not be the case. Either way, during the Q&A, Abruzzo summarized what she believed to be the major highlights of her time as NLRB GC, as her days were ostensibly beginning to wind down in that role, with Trump's inauguration just days away, on the date Time published the article.
Last Thursday, Fisher Phillips published their Top 2025 Predictions for Labor Relations. A really interesting read.
In both pieces, and countless others, we see the same names pop up consistently. To many, they're familiar; Miller Plastics and American Federation for Children, McLaren Macomb, Lion Elastomers, Cemex, Amazon Logistics, Home Depot, Stericycle, Chevron, and Loper Bright.
Some, like McLaren Macomb and Cemex, created their own buzz. Others, like Amazon Logistics, were known more for the case law itself. Amazon, in particular, became *that* case that "ended captive audiences". Abruzzo had long believed that requiring employees to attend such meetings was coercive and violated their rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). It may not have been as much about Amazon Logistics as it was about Abruzzo's personal agenda.
Just looking over this list could give a person whiplash. It has indeed been a wild ride, and will surely continue to be. Here is a need-to-know, shortlist of what went on with each of these, and why. They're listed in approximate chronological order.
Top 10 NLRB Cases To Watch in 2025
McLaren Macomb
Date: February, 2023
What Happened: The McLaren Macomb Hospital, located in Mount Clemens, Michigan, provided severance agreements with confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses (NDA) that employees claimed restricted their ability to discuss workplace issues.
What It Did: The NLRB ruled that broad confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses in severance agreements violate the NLRA.
Why It Matters: This could encourage employees to speak openly about workplace issues but creates uncertainty for employers, who may need to revise agreements to avoid legal risks
Lion Elastomers
Date: May 1, 2023
What Happened: An employee engaged in a heated exchange with management during union-related activities and was terminated, raising questions about the limits of protected behavior.
What It Did: The NLRB reinstated a standard that considers the context when evaluating misconduct during protected workplace activities.
Why It Matters: Employees may feel safer engaging in heated advocacy, but employers may find it harder to discipline disruptive behavior without risking legal challenges.
American Federation for Children, Inc.
Date: August, 2023
What Happened: An employee advocated for the rehiring of a former coworker who had left due to work authorization issues. The employer terminated the employee, questioning whether this advocacy was protected.
What It Did: The NLRB ruled that employees advocating for nonemployees is protected if it benefits the workplace.
Why It Matters: This expands employee protections but may complicate employers’ ability to manage hiring and workplace decisions.
Miller Plastic Products, Inc.
Date: August, 2023
What Happened: An employee raised workplace safety concerns during a group meeting and was later terminated, prompting a review of whether their actions were protected concerted activity.
What It Did: The NLRB returned to a broader test for determining what qualifies as protected group action.
Why It Matters: Employees gain stronger protections for collective efforts, but employers may face more disputes about whether certain actions are legally protected.
Stericycle, Inc.
Date: September 2023
What Happened: Employees challenged workplace rules they claimed were overly broad and could deter them from exercising their rights, including vague restrictions on conduct and confidentiality.
What It Did: The NLRB ruled that work rules are unlawful if they could discourage employees from exercising legal rights.
Why It Matters: This protects employees from vague or overly strict policies but puts pressure on employers to ensure rules are clearly defined and legally compliant.
Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC
Date: September 2023
What Happened: Employees tried to unionize, and the employer held meetings and took other actions alleged to interfere with their organizing efforts.
What It Did: The NLRB made it easier for unions to be recognized and harder for employers to disrupt union efforts.
Why It Matters: This strengthens union organizing but limits employers' ability to address union drives or insist on formal elections.
Home Depot USA, Inc.
Date: November 2023
What Happened: An employee wore a "Black Lives Matter" message on their uniform, and the employer disciplined them, citing a dress code policy.
What It Did: The NLRB ruled that employees can display messages supporting social justice if linked to workplace conditions.
Why It Matters: This allows workers to advocate for broader causes, but employers may struggle to enforce dress codes or maintain neutrality.
Chevron U.S.A. Inc.
Date: June, 2024
What Happened: Courts were increasingly relying on agencies’ interpretations of statutes under the "Chevron deference," raising questions about judicial independence.
What It Did: The Supreme Court ended the "Chevron deference," reducing judicial reliance on agency interpretations of statutes.
Why It Matters: This could limit the NLRB's ability to interpret laws, leading to more court challenges of its rulings and less regulatory certainty for both employees and employers.
Loper Bright Enterprises
Date: June, 2024
What Happened: A fishing company challenged a rule requiring it to pay for independent monitors under an agency interpretation of the law, questioning the scope of agency authority.
What It Did: The Supreme Court further limited agency power by requiring courts to interpret laws independently of agencies like the NLRB.
Why It Matters: This restricts agencies' influence but increases legal uncertainty, as courts may reinterpret existing labor law precedents.
Amazon Logistics
Date: November, 2024
What Happened: Amazon required employees to attend anti-union meetings, which some workers argued were coercive and violated their rights.
What It Did: The NLRB banned mandatory anti-union meetings, known as captive audience meetings.
Why It Matters: Employees may feel less pressured during union campaigns, but employers lose a key method of addressing union concerns directly with workers. Employers argue that this strips them of an opportunity to inform employees about fact-based subjects like dues and their rights.
Anyone interested in setting up a sports squares pool where we wager which of these will be overturned in 2025, which will stand, and which will be the first on the chopping block?
I say that in jest, of course, but there you have it. My top 10 to watch in 2025. If I left anything out, or missed context/detail, please do reach out to me. These are complicated cases that I may have oversimplified. If you want to know more, I'd encourage you to read the actual case law. This is not intended to take its place, but I hope you had a lot of fun reading it.
