US judge rejects medical center's bid to 'neuter' NLRB
By Daniel Wiessner
Sept 16 (Reuters) -A federal judge in Chicago has ruled that a nonprofit medical center is unlikely to prevail in its challenge to the structure of the National Labor Relations Board, and declined to block the agency's case against the center from moving forward.
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Cummings in a written decision on Friday said he disagreed with Alivio Medical Center's claims that NLRB administrative judges and the board's five members are improperly shielded from being removed at will by the U.S. president.
Those protections are designed to preserve the NLRB's status as an independent agency, Cummings said, and were upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court nearly 90 years ago in a case involving the Federal Trade Commission, which has a similar structure to the labor board.
"Alivio’s position – if accepted – would neuter the National Labor Relations Act by blocking all proceedings before the ... independent agency that has steadfastly and exclusively enforced the statute for the past eighty-nine years against entities accused of unfair labor practices," wrote Cummings, an appointee of Democratic former President Barack Obama.
Cummings denied Alivio's motion to block an administrative case against it from proceeding pending the outcome of its lawsuit.
An NLRB spokeswoman declined to comment. Lawyers for Alivio did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Alivio sued the board last month, following the example of more than a dozen other employers that have brought lawsuits challenging various aspects of the agency's structure in an effort to fend off NLRB administrative cases.
Cummings' ruling came after judges in Detroit and Washington, D.C., last week separately refused to block NLRB cases against an auto parts manufacturer and a Massachusetts hospital pending the outcome of challenges to the board's structure.
In July, two judges in Texas appointed by Republican former President Donald Trump temporarily blocked board cases against rocket maker SpaceX and pipeline operator Energy Transfer. The judge in the SpaceX case said that removal protections for administrative judges and NLRB members were likely invalid, while the other decision addressed only administrative judges.
Alivio is accused in the underlying board case of failing to bargain with a union before firing workers who allegedly provided false information to establish their legal authorization to work in the United States.
The nonprofit, which faces a hearing before an administrative judge scheduled for later this month, says that federal immigration law required it to terminate the workers.
The case is Alivio Medical Center v. NLRB, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, No. 1:24-cv-07217.
For Alivio: Grant Pecor of Barnes & Thornburg; Scott Cruz of UB Greensfelder
For the NLRB: David Boehm
Read more:
US judge unlikely to block NLRB case pending challenge to agency's powers
US judge rejects auto parts maker's challenge to NLRB structure
SpaceX wins block on US labor board case over severance agreements
US judge blocks NLRB case against energy firm challenging agency's structure
Amazon challenges US labor board's structure in lawsuit over union election
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
Reporting by Daniel Wiessner in Albany, New York
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.
