“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case
Hannah Whitbeck requested that Starbucks pay money damages for unlawfully firing her because she was trying to organize a union.
What happened in this case?
Hannah Whitbeck worked at a Starbucks store for nearly three years, but was then fired. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) found that Starbucks had improperly fired her because she was attempting to organize a union at the store. The NLRB concluded that Starbucks had committed an unfair labor practice because Hannah Whitbeck’s efforts to organize a union at the store where she worked was the reason she was fired. In addition, the NLRB awarded “direct and foreseeable” damages to her. Starbucks disagreed and appealed to the Sixth Circuit, where Trump Judge Chad Readler was on the panel that considered the case.
What did Trump judge Readler and the Sixth Circuit majority decide?
Trump judge Readler wrote a 2-1 decision, joined by George H.W. Bush nominee Alice Batchelder, that affirmed the NLRB finding of an unfair labor practice, but reversed the decision to award damages to Whitbeck. Readler claimed that the NLRB had no statutory or other authority to provide such damages. The November 2025 ruling was in NLRB v Starbucks.
What did Judge Stranch say in dissent?
Judge Jane Stranch, who was nominated by President Obama, firmly dissented. She carefully reviewed the statute as well as past precedent and found that the NLRB acted “within its discretion” by ordering Starbucks to “make Whitbeck whole”for all “direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms suffered because of its unfair labor practices.” She specifically noted that the Supreme Court had approved the NLRB’s practice, which has “always awarded make-whole remedies to fully accomplish the policies” of federal labor law.
Why is the result harmful?
Trump judge Readler’s ruling will obviously harm Hannah Whitbeck by depriving her of damages to fully compensate her for Starbucks’ unfair labor practices. It also threatens to similarly harm other employees fired by other corporations in violation of federal labor law, at least in the Sixth Circuit, which includes Ohio, Michigan, Tennessee, and Kentucky. The decision also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.