{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca5-24-60649-2026-05-14","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca5-24-60649-2026-05-14)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-13","fingerprint":"ewai:us:97516d","proof":"sha256:971690ff4aecd0e4727c7d41bcc1cc83e995b9e1bb0aec2f0231731eb3735752","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"us:ca5-24-60649-2026-05-14","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"Front matter","paragraphs":["para_1","para_2","para_3","para_4","para_5","para_6","para_7","para_8","para_9","para_10","para_11","para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18","para_19","para_20","para_21","para_22","para_23","para_24","para_25","para_26","para_27","para_28","para_29","para_30","para_31","para_32","para_33","para_34","para_35","para_36","para_37","para_38","para_39","para_40","para_41","para_42","para_43","para_44","para_45","para_46","para_47","para_48","para_49","para_50","para_51","para_52","para_53","para_54","para_55","para_56","para_57","para_58","para_59","para_60","para_61","para_62","para_63","para_64","para_65","para_66","para_67","para_68","para_69","para_70","para_71","para_72","para_73","para_74","para_75","para_76","para_77","para_78","para_79","para_80","para_81","para_82","para_83","para_84","para_85","para_86","para_87","para_88","para_89","para_90","para_91","para_92","para_93","para_94","para_95","para_96","para_97","para_98","para_99","para_100","para_101","para_102","para_103","para_104","para_105","para_106","para_107","para_108","para_109","para_110","para_111","para_112","para_113","para_114","para_115","para_116","para_117","para_118","para_119","para_120","para_121","para_122","para_123","para_124"],"kind":"front_matter"}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"United States Court of Appeals","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"for the Fifth Circuit","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"____________","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"No. 24-60649","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"____________","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"Starbucks Corporation,","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"Petitioner/Cross-Respondent,","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"versus","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"National Labor Relations Board,","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"Respondent/Cross-Petitioner.","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"______________________________","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"Petition for Review from an Order of the","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"National Labor Relations Board","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"Agency No. 03-CA-296757","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"Agency No. 03-CA-299016","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"Agency No. 03-CA-302451","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"______________________________","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"Before Stewart, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"James E. Graves, Jr., Circuit Judge:","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"Employees at two Starbucks locations in upstate New York began","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"unionizing campaigns in the Spring of 2022. At the first, the Latham store,","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"union organizer and shift supervisor James Schenk was terminated after a","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"series of infractions including using profanity about a coworker in a group","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"chat, failing to complete all tasks during a shift, and opening a letter","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"addressed to Starbucks. At the second, the Stuyvesant store, employees","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"testified that the district manager, Beate Kuhnle-Hambster, substantially","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"United States Court of Appeals","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"Fifth Circuit","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"FILED","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"May 14, 2026","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"Lyle W. Cayce","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"Clerk","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"Case: 24-60649 Document: 151-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/14/2026","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"No. 24-60649","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"2","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"increased her presence during the union campaign. The National Labor","paragraph_id":"para_36","court_paragraph":2},{"text":"Relations Board (“the Board”) filed an Amended consolidated complaint","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"alleging various violations of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"The ALJ concluded that Starbucks’ termination of Schenk at the","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"Latham store did not violate the NLRA, but that Kuhnle-Hambster’s","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"increased presence at the Stuyvesant store created the unlawful impression","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"of surveillance. The Board agreed regarding the Stuyvesant store but","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"disagreed about Schenk’s termination at the Latham store. Instead, it","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"concluded that Starbucks would not have disciplined or terminated Schenk","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"but for his protected union-related activities. Starbucks filed a petition for","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"review, and the Board filed an application for enforcement.","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"We review the Board’s factual findings for substantial evidence.","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"Renew Home Health v. NLRB, 95 F.4th 231, 239 (5th Cir. 2024). “Substantial","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"evidence is that which is relevant and sufficient for a reasonable mind to","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” IBEW, AFL-CIO, CLC, Loc.","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"Unions 605 & 985 v. NLRB, 973 F.3d 451, 457 (5th Cir. 2020) (citation","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"modified). “It is more than a mere scintilla, and less than a preponderance.”","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"El Paso Elec. Co. v. NLRB, 681 F.3d 651, 656 (5th Cir. 2012) (citation","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"modified).","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"But the Board must nevertheless consider “contradictory evidence or","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"evidence from which conflicting inferences could be drawn.” Universal","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 487 (1951). Accordingly, we may","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"remand for further consideration when the Board fails to do so. See Entergy","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"Miss., Inc. v. NLRB, 810 F.3d 287, 298 (5th Cir. 2015).","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"We are not convinced the Board adequately considered contradictory","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"evidence. For one, the Board’s decision did not sufficiently address evidence","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"that no other employee had used such extreme profanity targeted at","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"coworkers. It noted evidence that other employees used profanity in the","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"Case: 24-60649 Document: 151-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/14/2026","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"No. 24-60649","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"3","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"workplace, but that is a far cry from such extreme and sexist language aimed","paragraph_id":"para_67","court_paragraph":3},{"text":"at a fellow employee and his supervisor. Next, the Board concluded that","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"earlier events that led to disciplinary action against Schenk were not","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"“relevantly similar” to his obscene text messages. While not factually","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"identical, an earlier discipline also involved profanity in the workplace, so the","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"Board should at least consider whether Starbucks would have seen this as an","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"escalating issue.","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"The Board also did not properly grapple with the fact that no other","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"shift supervisors failed to complete closing tasks while on final warning.","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"Again, this key fact may distinguish his infraction from infractions by other","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"shift supervisors. Finally, the Board gave only cursory attention to evidence","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"that employees generally did not open mail and that Schenk himself stated","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"that he opened that particular letter because he did not believe Starbucks","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"would share its contents with its employees. Even if employees occasionally","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"opened certain items, such as packages, it is possible that a reasonable","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"employer would have responded much differently to Schenk opening official","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"mail from the NLRB.","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"Given these deficits in the Board’s reasoning, its decision should be","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"vacated and the case remanded. See id. at 297–98 (vacating and remanding to","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"the Board when it “ignored [relevant] evidence when explaining its","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"reasoning”); Carpenters & Millwrights, Loc. Union 2471 v. NLRB, 481 F.3d","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"804, 813 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (vacating and remanding when the Board “failed","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"to explain why it rejected evidence that is contrary to that finding”).","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"The Board is the primary decisionmaker for adjudications of this kind.","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"See Harris v. Bessent, 160 F.4th 1235, 1252 (D.C. Cir. 2025). It is thus best","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"suited to resolve factual disputes and so it must “grapple with countervailing","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"portions of the record.” Dish Network Corp. v. Nat’l Lab. Rels. Bd., 953 F.3d","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"370, 377 (5th Cir. 2020). It did not fully do so here. So, we GRANT the","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"Case: 24-60649 Document: 151-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/14/2026","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"No. 24-60649","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"4","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"petition for review, VACATE the Board’s decision, and REMAND for","paragraph_id":"para_98","court_paragraph":4},{"text":"further proceedings consistent with this opinion.","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"Case: 24-60649 Document: 151-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/14/2026","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"No. 24-60649","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"5","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"Andrew S. Oldham, Circuit Judge, concurring in part:","paragraph_id":"para_103","court_paragraph":5},{"text":"I wholeheartedly agree with my esteemed colleagues that Starbucks’s","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"petition for review must be granted. But I would not remand the matter to","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"the National Labor Relations Board. The Board has starkly deviated from","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"fairminded, law-based adjudication. See Space Expl. Techs. Corp. v. NLRB, 151","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"F.4th 761, 778 & n.96 (5th Cir. 2025) (collecting commentary). And this case","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"is yet another example of the Board’s troubling tendencies.","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"Starbucks fired an employee named James Schenk. Why? Because","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"Schenk called his female coworker with a documented medical condition a","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"“dumb f***ing b**ch who can’t even use cleaners” and “useless f***ing","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"[person].” And Schenk called his store manager a “chicken s**t,” a “f***ing","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"c**k[]sucker,” a “f***ing stupid[]” “lizard brain,” and a “[f]***ing","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"[p]***y” who “can suck my f***ing d**k.” ROA.763–66, 979, 1049–50. If a","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"company in this country cannot choose to fire someone for this sort of","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"unhinged abuse, then Heaven help us.","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"The administrative law judge recognized the obviously correct fact that","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"Schenk could be fired for his wild-eyed, profanity-laden rants—particularly","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"because he directed some of them at a subordinate and the rest of them at his","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"boss. ROA.985. Then the Board entirely ignored it. ROA.966–70. That is not","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"the stuff of reasonable, fairminded adjudication. So I would not give the","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"Board a second chance to do the right thing.","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"Case: 24-60649 Document: 151-1 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/14/2026","paragraph_id":"para_124"}],"word_count":1061,"cites":["340 U.S. 474","95 F.4th 231","973 F.3d 451","681 F.3d 651","810 F.3d 287","481 F.3d\n804","160 F.4th 1235","953 F.3d\n370","151\nF.4th 761"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"8720faed05d654e5d9518210b9a7561535b6e3bbe5ebd62f121b348d2df656f4","source_url":"http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-60649-CV0.pdf","fetched_at":"2026-10-03T22:08:29.617+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ca5-24-60649-2026-05-14","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca5-24-60649-2026-05-14","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca5-24-60649-2026-05-14","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca5-24-60649-2026-05-14","verification":{"stored_sha256":"8720faed05d654e5d9518210b9a7561535b6e3bbe5ebd62f121b348d2df656f4","recomputed_sha256":"8720faed05d654e5d9518210b9a7561535b6e3bbe5ebd62f121b348d2df656f4","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-13T06:08:33.802Z"}},"hash":"sha256:971690ff4aecd0e4727c7d41bcc1cc83e995b9e1bb0aec2f0231731eb3735752","version":"legal-2026-10-13","expires":"2026-10-14T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-13+legal-2026-10-13+2026-10-13T05:59:05","content_hash":"sha256:971690ff4aecd0e4727c7d41bcc1cc83e995b9e1bb0aec2f0231731eb3735752","revalidate_after":"2026-10-13T07:08:33.964Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca5-24-60649-2026-05-14","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca5-24-60649-2026-05-14"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca5-24-60649-2026-05-14"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca5-24-60649-2026-05-14"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/praxis/ca5-24-60649-2026-05-14","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-6cb3caa17de6329246abdef9f16de14c","response_hash":"sha256:971690ff4aecd0e4727c7d41bcc1cc83e995b9e1bb0aec2f0231731eb3735752"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-03T11:44:01.678Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3Aca5-24-60649-2026-05-14&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":6071}}