A federal appeals court on Friday declined to enforce the majority of a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruling that had found Starbucks guilty of illegal labor practices at a Wichita, Kansas, location. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected claims that the coffee chain unlawfully threatened employees with reprisals or pretended it was surveilling attempts to organize during a unionization drive.
The legal challenge followed an NLRB decision involving a Wichita store where managers were accused of closing a hiring portal and reducing staff hours because of union or other protected activities. The NLRB, an independent federal agency that enforces U.S. labor law, had previously determined these actions violated federal labor law by interfering with employees' rights to organize.
In the 2-0 decision, Circuit Judge Stephen Higginson wrote that statements regarding the hiring portal and store hours did not constitute threats of reprisal because the hiring pause did not appear to imperil job security and understaffing might have justified shorter hours. The court did, however, uphold one finding: that Starbucks illegally threatened to deny maternity leave benefits to a pregnant employee, Maia Cuellar-Serafini, if workers unionized. The court found substantial evidence that she could "reasonably feel" her benefits were at risk due to union activities.
The ruling affects the legal standing of Starbucks employees who have voted to join unions at more than 700 stores across the United States. For these workers, and the hundreds who have filed complaints with the NLRB, the decision addresses the limits of what management can say during organizing drives. A Starbucks spokesperson stated the company was encouraged by the ruling, noting it remains committed to "engaging directly" with its "partners," the term the company uses for its employees.
The scale of the ongoing labor dispute involves hundreds of open complaints filed with the NLRB regarding alleged illegal labor practices. For a typical employee, this ruling means that while some management comments about store operations—such as hiring pauses or hour reductions—may not be legally classified as coercive threats, specific threats regarding personal benefits like maternity leave remain prohibited.
This decision follows a separate legal ruling for Starbucks earlier in the week. On Wednesday, September 2, 2026, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan reversed a separate NLRB finding that had barred workers in New York from wearing union-related apparel. The New York court ruled that the NLRB failed to balance the employees' right to organize with the company's right to maintain its preferred brand image. Following Friday's ruling, the NLRB did not immediately provide a comment on whether it would appeal the 5th Circuit's decision.