{ "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", "access_class": "public", "access_view": "public" }