Starbucks loses appeal of NLRB ruling that found it illegally fired baristas

Core Points - The 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Starbucks lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of NLRB administrative law judges, which may impact other companies like Amazon and Trader Joe's [1][6] - The court found substantial evidence that Starbucks was aware of baristas recording meetings without consent prior to their firings, rejecting Starbucks' argument regarding the timing of the discovery of these recordings [2][9] - The case marks the first instance where a federal appeals court examined broader challenges to NLRB enforcement powers, including the constitutionality of its administrative law judges [6][12] Company Actions - Starbucks was found to have illegally fired two baristas in Philadelphia who were attempting to organize a union, with the court supporting the NLRB's conclusion of unfair labor practices [8][9] - Starbucks claimed the firings were due to performance issues and spreading false rumors, but these claims were contested by the NLRB [10][11] - The NLRB's order for Starbucks to cover the baristas' foreseeable expenses related to their firings was deemed an overreach of authority by the court [9]