Deep Dive into Sixth Circuit’s Rejection of Thrvy Remedies
The NLRB ordered Starbucks to compensate a fired shift supervisor and union organizer for “direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms” resulting from anti-union discrimination under the Board’s Thryv framework.
The Sixth Circuit upheld the Board’s unfair labor practice finding—agreeing that Starbucks unlawfully fired her amid union organizing—but ruled that the Thryv monetary remedy exceeded the NLRB’s statutory authority.
Why the Sixth Circuit Rejected the Thryv Remedy
* Section 10(c) of the NLRA permits only equitable remedies such as reinstatement and backpay.
* The court held that “affirmative action” under §10(c) historically refers to equitable relief, not legal damages.
* The Thryv remedy—requiring compensation for credit card interest, retirement account penalties, lost property, and other downstream financial harms constitutes consequential damages, a classic form of legal relief.
* Under SEC v. Jarkesy (2024), legal damages trigger a right to a jury trial, which the NLRB cannot provide.
Facts of the Underlying Case
The supervisor, a lead union organizer, was fired after a dispute with a coworker on a day her grandfather had a heart attack. She left work leaving the coworker as the only employee onsite against company policy. Starbucks claimed performance issues; the Board found sufficient anti-union animus to establish a violation.
The Sixth Circuit emphasized that while the Board may order monetary relief to restore the status quo, Thryv remedies go far beyond that by compensating for tangential, downstream harms, placing them outside the NLRB’s lawful authority.
The NLRB ordered Starbucks to compensate a fired shift supervisor and union organizer for “direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms” resulting from anti-union discrimination under the Board’s Thryv framework.
The Sixth Circuit upheld the Board’s unfair labor practice finding—agreeing that Starbucks unlawfully fired her amid union organizing—but ruled that the Thryv monetary remedy exceeded the NLRB’s statutory authority.
Why the Sixth Circuit Rejected the Thryv Remedy
* Section 10(c) of the NLRA permits only equitable remedies such as reinstatement and backpay.
* The court held that “affirmative action” under §10(c) historically refers to equitable relief, not legal damages.
* The Thryv remedy—requiring compensation for credit card interest, retirement account penalties, lost property, and other downstream financial harms constitutes consequential damages, a classic form of legal relief.
* Under SEC v. Jarkesy (2024), legal damages trigger a right to a jury trial, which the NLRB cannot provide.
Facts of the Underlying Case
The supervisor, a lead union organizer, was fired after a dispute with a coworker on a day her grandfather had a heart attack. She left work leaving the coworker as the only employee onsite against company policy. Starbucks claimed performance issues; the Board found sufficient anti-union animus to establish a violation.
Court’s Bottom Line
* ULP finding: Affirmed — Starbucks unlawfully discriminated.
* Thryv monetary award: Vacated — the NLRB cannot impose remedies resembling compensatory damages.
The Sixth Circuit emphasized that while the Board may order monetary relief to restore the status quo, Thryv remedies go far beyond that by compensating for tangential, downstream harms, placing them outside the NLRB’s lawful authority.