Cintas Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
482 F.3d 463 (2007)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
Nationwide work-uniform supplier Cintas Corp. (defendant) included confidentiality provisions in its employee handbook. A section describing the company’s principles and values stated, “We honor confidentiality. We recognize and protect the confidentiality of any information concerning the company, . . . its partners, . . . and accounting and financial matters.” Another section titled “Discipline Policy” warned employees they could be sanctioned for “violating a confidence or unauthorized release of confidential information.” The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) (plaintiff) found that the rule violated the Wagner Act because employees could reasonably interpret it to prohibit discussions about the terms and conditions of their employment. Cintas appealed on three grounds. First, Cintas claimed the confidentiality provisions did not explicitly prohibit activity protected under the Wagner Act. Second, no evidence showed employees actually interpreted the confidentiality provisions to proscribe protected discussions. Third, the company itself never construed or applied the provisions as prohibiting protected activity. The NLRB countered that the rules could still interfere with protected activities, despite not explicitly prohibiting them and the employees and Cintas never interpreting them to do so.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Griffith, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
