Epilepsy Foundation of Northeast Ohio v. National Labor Relations Board
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
268 F.3d 1095 (2001)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) (plaintiff) found the Epilepsy Foundation of Northeast Ohio (the foundation) (defendant) had committed unfair labor practices by discharging two employees for participating in protected union activities. A Supreme Court decision had already recognized that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protects employees’ right to union representation during investigatory interviews in unionized but not other workplaces. The NLRB extended the rule to nonunion workplaces relying heavily on one of its own prior decisions, then applied the new rule retroactively to hold the foundation liable. The NLRB had previously changed positions several times on the issue but gave a clear and reasonable rationale for its decision. Instead of requesting rehearing, the foundation petitioned in federal circuit court challenging the NLRB’s decision. The foundation argued for the first time in its appellate brief that the NLRB’s interpretation of federal labor laws unconstitutionally restricted employer speech. Counsel for the foundation also argued for the first time at oral argument before the circuit court that the facts did not implicate employee rights to union representation, even if those rights extended to nonunion workplaces. Finally, the foundation argued the NLRB had not adequately explained its decision. The NLRB cross-petitioned to enforce its order.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Edwards, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 807,000 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.