Court hits Starbucks for firing union organizer, narrows damages
A federal court found Starbucks unlawfully fired a union-organizing supervisor – then curbed how much the company must pay for the violation.
On November 5, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued its decision in National Labor Relations Board v. Starbucks Corporation, a case that has drawn attention from HR professionals and labor watchers across the country. The dispute centers on the firing of Hannah Whitbeck, a shift supervisor at Starbucks’ Main and Liberty store in Ann Arbor, Michigan, who became a leading figure in her store’s union organizing campaign.
Whitbeck, promoted to shift supervisor after joining Starbucks in 2019, was at the forefront of efforts to organize her workplace in early 2022. She encouraged colleagues to sign union authorization cards, wore union buttons, answered customer questions about unionizing, and made her support for the campaign visible in the store and on social media.
Several months into the campaign, Starbucks terminated Whitbeck, citing her decision to leave a barista alone in the café for about half an hour – an alleged violation of the company’s two-employee rule, which was intended to protect employee safety. Whitbeck did not notify a supervisor before leaving at the end of her shift, and Starbucks pointed to this as a serious breach of policy.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) challenged Starbucks’ explanation, alleging that Whitbeck’s firing was actually motivated by her union activity, in violation of the National Labor Relations Act. An administrative law judge agreed, finding that Starbucks’ stated reason for termination was not applied consistently. For example, another supervisor who broke the same rule had previously received only a warning, not termination. The NLRB ordered Starbucks to reinstate Whitbeck and compensate her for lost earnings and any “direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms” resulting from the firing.
Starbucks appealed, arguing that the Board’s findings were not supported by substantial evidence and that the expanded damages exceeded what the law allows. The Sixth Circuit sided with the NLRB on the core issue, concluding that Starbucks had committed an unfair labor practice by firing Whitbeck for her union organizing. However, the court vacated the Board’s order for expanded monetary damages, holding that the NLRB’s authority is limited to reinstatement and back pay, not broader compensatory damages.
The case was sent back for further proceedings on the appropriate remedy, and the decision is not yet final.
The case offers a clear reminder: consistent application of workplace policies and careful documentation are essential, especially when employees are engaged in protected activities like union organizing. The ruling clarifies that while employers can enforce their rules, they must do so without discrimination or retaliation. The outcome is a call for HR leaders to review their policies, train managers, and ensure fair and lawful treatment of employees involved in organizing efforts – because the stakes, as this case shows, can be significant.
