September 11, 2025|Franchise Frontlines
September 11, 2025 | National Labor Relations Board | Unpublished Order
Executive Summary
In an unpublished administrative order, Chief Administrative Law Judge Robert A. Giannasi denied Starbucks Corporation’s motion to dismiss portions of a consolidated unfair-labor-practice complaint brought by Workers United. Because the National Labor Relations Board lacked a quorum at the time the motion was filed, the matter was referred to the Chief ALJ under Section 102.179 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations. Starbucks argued that several allegations in the consolidated complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Chief ALJ concluded that Starbucks had not met the standard required for dismissal at this preliminary stage and emphasized that the company could renew its arguments at the evidentiary hearing or, if necessary, again raise them to the Board on exceptions.
Relevant Background
The General Counsel issued a consolidated complaint containing multiple allegations across several case numbers, all involving asserted violations of the National Labor Relations Act arising from conduct Workers United alleged occurred at various Starbucks locations. Each allegation in the consolidated complaint remains just that—an allegation—and the order does not resolve any factual disputes or make credibility findings. Starbucks moved to dismiss certain portions of the complaint, contending that the allegations identified did not state legally sufficient claims and that the General Counsel had not pleaded the required elements for the challenged theories of liability. The motion was served and dated July 9, although the filing itself was not electronically submitted to the Board until July 29.
Because the Board lacked a quorum at that time, it could not rule on the motion directly. Under Section 102.179, motions requiring Board action are referred to the Chief Administrative Law Judge when the Board is unable to act. The referral centered the dispute squarely within the ALJ’s procedural authority, setting the stage for a ruling focused on pleading adequacy rather than the merits of the complaint.
Decision
The Chief ALJ denied Starbucks’ motion to dismiss. He determined that Starbucks had not demonstrated that the allegations at issue failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted or that the company was entitled to judgment as a matter of law at the complaint stage. The order makes clear that this determination was confined to the standards applicable to a motion to dismiss—not the evidentiary merits of the allegations.
The Chief ALJ emphasized that dismissal at this stage is an extraordinary remedy. NLRB procedural rules allow the General Counsel significant latitude to pursue complaints to a hearing, where factual disputes are resolved. The denial was expressly issued without prejudice, permitting Starbucks to renew each argument before the Administrative Law Judge during the evidentiary hearing. The Chief ALJ also noted that Starbucks could again present those arguments to the Board on exceptions if the case proceeds past the ALJ phase.
Nothing in the order reflects a finding that Starbucks violated the NLRA. Instead, the ruling simply holds that the allegations were sufficient to proceed to a full evidentiary hearing where the facts, defenses, and legal theories can be fully developed. The lack of Board quorum shaped the procedural posture but not the substance of the underlying claims.
Looking Forward
This ruling may illustrate how employers—including franchisors and multi-unit brands—should think about early motion practice before the NLRB. Motions to dismiss are rarely granted because the General Counsel’s burden at the complaint stage is minimal, and challenges that go to factual disputes typically must wait for a hearing. The order highlights that employers may benefit from viewing motions to dismiss as issue-preservation tools rather than dispositive strategies. Although this case arose from a unique procedural moment created by the absence of a Board quorum, the underlying lesson remains consistent with broader NLRB practice: allegations generally move forward to a hearing unless they clearly fail to state any claim.
The order also signals that consolidated complaints encompassing numerous allegations across different locations, dates, or case numbers are unlikely to be pared back through early motion practice. Employers may consider ensuring that their internal investigative records, witness availability, and documentation practices are preserved early, as these materials often become central at the hearing stage where factual development occurs. While each case is fact-specific and outcomes depend on the quality of the record presented, this ruling reflects the procedural environment in which many employers—including franchisors dealing with coordinated organizing campaigns—may find themselves when facing consolidated NLRB complaints.
This article is based solely on the opinion of the Agency in this matter. The author has not conducted any independent investigation into the facts. For the avoidance of doubt, each statement related to the law and facts in this article is drawn from the Agency’s opinion in this case.
Thomas O’Connell is a Shareholder at Buchalter APC and Chair of the firm’s Franchise Practice Group. For questions about this article or media inquiries, you can contact Tom at toconnell@buchalter.com.
This communication is not intended to create, and does not create, an attorney-client relationship or any other legal relationship. No statement herein constitutes legal advice, nor should it be relied upon or interpreted as such. This communication is for general informational purposes only and is not a substitute for legal counsel. Readers should not act or refrain from acting based on any information provided without seeking appropriate legal advice specific to their situation. For more information, visit www.buchalter.com.
