Employment Litigation · Primary-source case analysis

Starbucks: NLRB Injunction Requests Must Satisfy the Traditional Four-Factor Test

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published September 14, 2026

After Starbucks fired workers involved in a union-organizing media event, the NLRB sought interim reinstatement while its administrative unfair-labor-practice case continued. The lower courts applied a two-part reasonable-cause standard.

Section 10(j) authorizes temporary judicial relief

The NLRA permits the Board to ask a federal district court for temporary relief it deems just and proper while agency proceedings are pending. The statutory phrase invokes equitable authority without expressly replacing its traditional constraints.

Traditional equity supplied four requirements

The Board must make a clear showing of likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, a favorable balance of equities, and consistency with the public interest. Congress had not clearly displaced that framework.

Reasonable cause set the bar too low

The Sixth Circuit’s test asked only whether reasonable cause supported the alleged unfair labor practice and whether relief was just and proper. That approach deferred to a preliminary agency position rather than requiring the independent judicial assessment ordinarily associated with an injunction.

The merits remained with the agency

Applying the traditional injunction test does not transfer final unfair-labor-practice adjudication to the district court. The NLRB remains free to develop its record and reach its own final legal and factual conclusions.

Key takeaways

• A section 10(j) request is governed by the traditional four preliminary-injunction factors.
• A regional director’s preliminary view does not itself establish likely success.
• Interim judicial analysis does not decide the NLRB’s final administrative merits.
• Build separate evidence for likelihood of success, irreparable harm, equities, and public interest.