and 23-2241 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. Starbucks Corporation, d/b/a Starbucks Coffee Company STARBUCKS CORPORATION, d/b/a…

PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
Nos. 23-1953 and 23-2241
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
Petitioner in No. 23-1953
v.
STARBUCKS CORPORATION,
d/b/a Starbucks Coffee Company
STARBUCKS CORPORATION,
d/b/a Starbucks Coffee Company
Petitioner in No. 23-2241
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

-- 1 of 32 --

2
On Application for Enforcement and
Cross-Petition for Review of a
Decision and Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
(NLRB Case Nos. 04-CA-252338, 04-CA-256390,
04-CA-256401,04-CA-258416, 04-CA-256398,
04-CA-256399, and 04-CA-257024)
Argued on September 18, 2024
Before: JORDAN, McKEE, and AMBRO, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: December 27, 2024)
Ruth E. Burdick
Kira Dellinger Vol
Eric Weitz (Argued)
National Labor Relations Board
Appellate and Supreme Court Litigation Branch
1015 Half Street SE
Washington, DC 20570
Counsel for Petitioner National Labor
Relations Board
Maurice Baskin
Emily Carapella
Littler Mendelson, PC
815 Connecticut Avenue NW
Suite 400
Washington, DC 20006

-- 2 of 32 --

3
Lisa S. Blatt
Joshua A. Hanley
Sarah M. Harris (Argued)
Edward L. Pickup
Aaron Z. Roper
Williams & Connolly LLP
680 Maine Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20024
Counsel for Cross-Petitioner Starbucks
Corp. d/b/a Starbucks Coffee Co.
Michael E. Kenneally (Argued)
Philip A. Miscimarra
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20004
Counsel for Amici Curiae Chamber of
Commerce of the United States of Amer-
ica, Coalition for a Democratic Work-
place, National Federation of Independ-
ent Small Business Legal Center, Inc.,
and National Retail Federation

-- 3 of 32 --

4
Stephanie A. Maloney
Jordan L. Von Bokern
U.S. Chamber Litigation Center
1615 H Street NW
Washington, DC 20062
Counsel for Amicus Curiae Chamber of
Commerce of the United States of Amer-
ica
OPINION OF THE COURT
AMBRO, Circuit Judge
Starbucks Corporation terminated two employees,
baristas Echo Nowakowska and Tristan Bussiere, after they en-
gaged in labor organizing. Starbucks claimed they were termi-
nated for violating company policies and performing poorly at
work. But the National Labor Relations Board determined that
Starbucks fired them because of their involvement in organiz-
ing, and thus violated Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act (NLRA). 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1),
(a)(3).
The Board petitions for enforcement of its order. Star-
bucks cross-petitions for review of four issues: (1) whether the
Board’s administrative law judges (ALJs) are unconstitution-
ally insulated from presidential removal; (2) whether substan-
tial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion that Starbucks
committed unfair labor practices by firing Nowakowska and
Bussiere and cutting Nowakowska’s hours; (3) whether

-- 4 of 32 --

5
purportedly after-acquired evidence—that Nowakowska and
Bussiere recorded other employees and customers without
their consent—would have independently justified their termi-
nations, thus precluding their reinstatement and limiting their
backpay under the NLRA; and (4) whether the NLRA and the
U.S. Constitution authorize the remedy the Board ordered pur-
suant to Thryv, Inc., 372 N.L.R.B. No. 22, 2022 WL 17974951
(Dec. 13, 2022) (subsequent history omitted), which includes
compensation to the employees for direct or foreseeable pecu-
niary harms.
We hold that: (1) we lack jurisdiction to consider Star-
bucks’ constitutional challenge to layered ALJ removal protec-
tions, and, in any event, Starbucks fails to demonstrate injury
stemming from the protections; (2) substantial evidence sup-
ports the Board’s unfair-labor-practice conclusions with re-
spect to Nowakowska’s termination and reduction in hours
along with Bussiere’s termination; and (3) substantial evidence
supports the finding that Starbucks knew about the recording
activity prior to the terminations, so it cannot rely on that ac-
tivity to avoid reinstatement and limit backpay. We therefore
grant the Board’s petition for enforcement and deny Starbucks’
cross-petition for review as to the constitutionality of the ALJ’s
removal protections, whether substantial evidence supported
the Board’s conclusions, and its ruling on the after-acquired
evidence. But we vacate the portion of the Board’s order that
requires Starbucks to “compensate Bussiere and Nowakowska
for any direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms incurred as a re-
sult of the unlawful adverse actions against them, including
reasonable search-for-work and interim employment expenses,
if any, regardless of whether these expenses exceed interim
earnings.” App. 7 n.3. That portion exceeds the Board’s au-
thority under the NLRA. We remand for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.

-- 5 of 32 --

6
I. BACKGROUND
Between 2018 and 2020, Echo Nowakowska and Tris-
tan Bussiere worked as baristas at Starbucks store locations in
Philadelphia. In 2019, they began to work at the store located
at Broad and Washington Streets. Around June of 2019,
Nowakowska and Bussiere began to talk with coworkers re-
garding problems with the store’s manager at the time, Erin
Graves, as well as complaints about their working conditions.
In July, Nowakowska and Bussiere coordinated an in-store
demonstration, in which they and other current or former em-
ployees entered the store to deliver a demand letter to Graves.
After the demonstration, Nowakowska and Bussiere continued
to air their concerns, attend meetings with Starbucks execu-
tives and employees, and engage in other union organizing ac-
tivities. Emails exchanged between managers expressed con-
cern with the situation and the growing demands of the em-
ployees.
In September 2019, Starbucks hired David Vaughan,
Jr., as the new store manager at Broad & Washington. On Oc-
tober 29, Nowakowska received a written warning from
Vaughan and District Manager Brian Dragone. It stemmed
from Vaughan’s observation that Nowakowska slammed a
drink down in front of a customer and failed to call out the cus-
tomer’s name properly, after which Vaughan had to apologize
to the customer. The warning also stated that management
needed to coach Nowakowska multiple times to connect ap-
propriately with customers and not to slam drinks on the coun-
ter. Dragone sent Partner Resource Manager Gerald Hender-
son an email stating that Nowakowska and Bussiere were com-
plaining to other employees about Vaughan. He also noted the
October 29 warning to Nowakowska as well as a written warn-
ing to Bussiere for tardiness.

-- 6 of 32 --

7
Dragone’s email also summarized a reduction in sched-
uled hours at the Broad & Washington location. In November,
Nowakowska talked to Vaughan about the reduction. He ex-
plained it was in response to Nowakowska’s poor workplace
performance and “causing a disruption.” App. 240. During
that conversation, Vaughan specifically referred to the October
29 written warning.
On November 21, Dragone, Vaughan, and Partner Re-
source Manager Michael Rose issued Bussiere a written warn-
ing. It stated that he failed to wear his hat and apron on multi-
ple occasions, left the front counter multiple times during his
shift, and failed to stock the pastry case on multiple occasions.
The Philadelphia Baristas United union filed an unfair-
labor-practice charge against Starbucks on November 25.
Nowakowska and Bussiere led other workers and supporters
into the Broad & Washington store to hand Dragone a copy.
They later filed their own charges in 2020.
In January 2020, Vaughan sent Dragone an email that
said in part:
[Bussiere] & [Nowakowska] think they can do
what ever they want & just threaten to call NLRB
if anybody says anything to them[.] I’m more
than willing to deal with the backlash that would
come with terminating the two of them because
it doesn’t matter if we terminate now or 1 year
from now[;] they will still call NLRB & spew vi-
cious lies just like they do now while we pay
them & give them benefits[.] [T]hese two people

-- 7 of 32 --

8
obviously hate the brand and do everything they
can to tarnish the name STARBUCKS.
App. 819.
Later in January, Dragone and Vaughan notified
Nowakowska of her termination. In a written notice, they ex-
plained that she had treated customers in a hostile manner ear-
lier that month. Barista Cora Siburt had accused her of re-
sponding poorly to a customer’s request for a particular amount
of ice, including by asking the customer if she would like to
make her drink herself.1 A second incident involved a cus-
tomer asking for free tea bags as part of a promotional cam-
paign. The customer had purchased a holiday mug that came
with free tea for the month of January. When Nowakowska
took the mug, the customer said he had coffee in the mug al-
ready and wanted the tea bags on their own. Nowakowska re-
plied that the promotion required using the mug, though shift
supervisor Leanne Bissell told her to do what the customer
asked. As Nowakowska was doing so, the customer also asked
for free butter, though he had not ordered food, and she re-
torted, “Now you want free butter?”. App. 25. Nowakowska
acknowledged later that the statement was not good customer
service. The discharge notice also referred to the drink slam-
ming incident in October discussed above.
Nowakowska told Bussiere in early February about a
rumor that another barista at Broad & Washington, Simon Al-
len, would be terminated. Bussiere shared the rumor with Al-
len, who later confronted Siburt, the supposed source of the
rumor, telling her what he had heard from Bussiere. Siburt
1 The ALJ did not credit Siburt’s story because her demeanor
was guarded while testifying and there were discrepancies in
her testimony.

-- 8 of 32 --

9
then told Vaughan and Dragone about the conversation. Also
informed was Marcus Eckensberger, Regional Director of Op-
erations, and he concluded that knowingly spreading this false
rumor, as he said Bussiere had done, warranted termination.
That followed on February 26. According to his notice of sep-
aration, Bussiere was fired for “[k]nowingly communicating
false information” to Allen, which was “disruptive to opera-
tions.” App. 1456. It also referred to Bussiere’s prior disci-
pline for “disrupting operations” and coworkers. Id.
In August 2020, the Board issued a consolidated com-
plaint against Starbucks, based on the aforementioned unfair-
labor-practice charges, for alleged violations of Sec-
tions 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1),
(a)(3). Most relevant to this appeal, the Board alleged that
Starbucks committed unfair labor practices by reducing
Nowakowska’s hours and by firing her and Bussiere in re-
sponse to protected labor organizing activities. In June 2021,
the ALJ who heard the case concluded that these actions indeed
violated the NLRA. He ordered the company to offer reinstate-
ment to Nowakowska and Bussiere and to make them whole
for any loss of earnings and benefits. He also ordered it to
compensate them for search-for-work and interim employment
expenses and to make Nowakowska whole for her unlawful re-
duction in hours.
Starbucks filed exceptions to the ALJ’s decision, and a
three-member panel of the Board heard the case. It adopted the
ALJ’s findings and conclusions in February 2023. In addition
to the remedies ordered by the ALJ, the Board further ordered
Starbucks to compensate Bussiere and Nowakowska for any
“direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms incurred as a result of
the unlawful adverse actions against them, including reasona-
ble search-for-work and interim employment expenses, if any.”

-- 9 of 32 --

10
App. 7 n.3 (citing Thryv). The specific remedies to be ordered
under the umbrella of “any direct or foreseeable pecuniary
losses” have not yet been determined; an ALJ will make that
decision at a future compliance proceeding. Starbucks moved
for reconsideration and the Board affirmed its prior decision in
June 2023.
The Board seeks enforcement of its order, and Star-
bucks cross-petitions for review of the issues discussed below.
II. ANALYSIS
The Board had jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. § 160(a).
We have jurisdiction to review the petition for enforcement and
the cross-petition under 29 U.S.C. § 160(e), (f). We apply ple-
nary review to “questions of law and the NLRB’s application
of legal precepts.” NLRB v. ImageFIRST Unif. Rental Serv.,
910 F.3d 725, 732 (3d Cir. 2018). We affirm its factual find-
ings when they are supported by substantial evidence, that is,
“relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as ad-
equate to support a conclusion,” id., even were we to disagree
with that conclusion. When the Board adopts an ALJ’s deci-
sion, we review the ALJ’s determinations; when it adopts the
ALJ’s decision in part, we review both the Board’s and ALJ’s
decisions. Trafford Distrib. Ctr. v. NLRB, 478 F.3d 172, 179
(3d Cir. 2007).
A. Constitutionality of ALJ Removal Protections
Starbucks first argues that the Board’s ALJs are uncon-
stitutionally insulated from presidential oversight.
The Board appoints its ALJs. 5 U.S.C. § 3105; 29
U.S.C. § 154(a); NLRB, Revision of Statement of Organization
and Functions § 201, 47 Fed. Reg. 20,888, 20,889 (May 14,
1982). They are removable only for cause as prescribed by the

-- 10 of 32 --

11
Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. 5 U.S.C. § 7521(a). The
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) determines
whether cause to fire an ALJ exists. Id. MSPB members can
be removed by the President only for cause. 5 U.S.C.
§ 1202(d).
The Board’s ALJs oversee hearings and issue decisions
to which parties can file exceptions that are reviewed by the
Board. 29 C.F.R. §§ 102.45(a), 102.46(a). It has five mem-
bers appointed by the President with the advice and consent of
the Senate. 29 U.S.C. § 153(a). They serve five-year, stag-
gered terms and can only be removed “for neglect of duty or
malfeasance in office.” Id.
The combination of for-cause removal protections for
ALJs, Board members, and MSPB members creates the lay-
ered insulation from presidential review to which Starbucks
objects on constitutional grounds. More specifically, it con-
tends that because Article II vests executive power in the Pres-
ident, U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 1, Officers of the United States
cannot exercise executive power while insulated from presi-
dential control by at least two layers of removal protections.
See Lucia v. SEC, 585 U.S. 237, 251 (2018) (holding that ALJs
are Officers of the United States under the Constitution’s Ap-
pointments Clause, U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2); Free Enter.
Fund v. Pub. Co. Acct. Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477, 483–84
(2010) (holding that “multilevel protection[s] from removal”
for inferior officers, defined as Officers of the United States
who report to another official below the President rather than
to the President directly, are “contrary to Article II’s vesting of
the executive power in the President”).
We lack jurisdiction to consider this claim under 29
U.S.C. § 160(e) because Starbucks failed to raise it before the
Board, and no extraordinary circumstances excuse that failure.

-- 11 of 32 --

12
Even if we had jurisdiction under the NLRA, Starbucks fails to
establish standing to bring this claim because it does not
demonstrate injury-in-fact from the removal protections at is-
sue.
1. Jurisdiction to Review Removal Protections
We lack jurisdiction to review issues that were not
raised before the Board except in “extraordinary circum-
stances.” 29 U.S.C. § 160(e). Starbucks concedes that it failed
to raise this challenge before the Board but contends that ex-
traordinary circumstances are present here. It relies principally
on Advanced Disposal Services East, Inc. v. NLRB, 820 F.3d
592 (3d Cir. 2016). There we concluded that a challenge to the
constitutionality of the appointment of a regional director
within the agency presented an extraordinary circumstance be-
cause it went to “the composition of the NLRB, and thus im-
plicate[d] its authority to act.” Id. at 600.
A challenge to an appointment is meaningfully distinct
from a challenge to removal protections. The latter does not
call into question the ALJ’s or the Board’s core authority to
act. The Supreme Court instructs that where an official’s re-
moval protections are unconstitutional, he can still carry out
his duties, which does not hold true if his appointment was un-
constitutional. Collins v. Yellen, 594 U.S. 220, 257–59 & n.23
(2021) (concluding that a constitutional defect in the remova-
bility of an officer did not affect the officer’s ability to act);
Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, 591 U.S. 197, 232 (2020) (consider-
ing whether the removal protection for the Director of the Con-
sumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was severable from
the rest of the statutory scheme because, if so, “then the CFPB
may continue to exist and operate notwithstanding Congress’s
unconstitutional attempt to insulate the agency’s Director from
removal by the President”). At base, “there is no reason to

-- 12 of 32 --

13
regard any of the actions taken” by the ALJ in this case “as
void.” Collins, 594 U.S. at 257–58. The ALJ was properly ap-
pointed and operating within his jurisdiction. Id. No one sug-
gests otherwise.
Starbucks next contends that this challenge presents an
extraordinary circumstance because the removal-protections
claim is outside the Board’s expertise, citing Axon Enterprise,
Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 598 U.S. 175, 194 (2023).
But the question in Axon was whether the Securities Exchange
Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act precluded district
courts from exercising jurisdiction over a challenge where no
FTC administrative proceeding had taken place. See id. at 180.
Here, by contrast, agency proceedings have already happened,
and Starbucks could have raised its challenge before the Board
but chose not to do so. The Court in Axon also addressed a
much different statute from the NLRA “extraordinary circum-
stances” provision before us. It is thus not on point.
Starbucks similarly relies on Carr v. Saul, 593 U.S. 83
(2021), for the proposition that agency adjudications are “ill
suited to address structural constitutional challenges, which
usually fall outside the adjudicators’ areas of technical exper-
tise.” Id. at 92. In Carr, there was no statute or regulation
requiring the petitioners to raise first their challenge in admin-
istrative proceedings akin to the NLRA here. See id. at 88.
Those cases do not support this challenge involving an extraor-
dinary circumstance that overcomes the statutory exhaustion
bar.
2. Standing to Challenge Removal Protections
Even if we had jurisdiction under the NLRA, we would
not reach the merits of this issue because Starbucks lacks
standing. To establish it, a litigant must demonstrate that it was

-- 13 of 32 --

14
injured in fact, that the injury is “fairly traceable” to the chal-
lenged conduct, and that the injury will be “redressed by a fa-
vorable decision” from the court. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife,
504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992) (cleaned up). Starbucks cannot
demonstrate an injury-in-fact. In discussing injury from un-
constitutional removal protections, the Supreme Court listed
examples of how such a harm might be demonstrated:
Suppose, for example, that the President had at-
tempted to remove a[n official] but was pre-
vented from doing so by a lower court decision
holding that he did not have “cause” for removal.
Or suppose that the President had made a public
statement expressing displeasure with actions
taken by [the official] and had asserted that he
would remove the [official] if the statute did not
stand in the way. In those situations, the statu-
tory provision would clearly cause harm.
Collins, 594 U.S. at 259–60. In other words, a challenger must
show that the constitutional infirmity actually caused harm.
Starbucks’ assertion that the ALJ in this case “might
have altered his behavior” if there were closer presidential su-
pervision, Starbucks Opening Br. 29 (quoting Collins, 594 U.S.
at 260), is simply speculation. Other courts of appeal have re-
jected removal-protection challenges to agency officials on the
basis that the challengers could not show any harm from the
alleged constitutional violation. See K & R Contractors, LLC
v. Keene, 86 F.4th 135, 148–49 (4th Cir. 2023) (Department of
Labor ALJs); Calcutt v. FDIC, 37 F.4th 293, 316–19 (6th Cir.
2022) (FDIC Board and ALJs), rev’d on other grounds per cu-
riam, 598 U.S. 623 (2023).

-- 14 of 32 --

15
Starbucks also contends that we should distinguish be-
tween the sort of retrospective relief discussed in Collins and
prospective relief. Starbucks lodges this request because it
will appear before an ALJ again to determine how much it
owes its former employees in a remedial compliance proceed-
ing. Starbucks again relies on Axon, this time for the proposi-
tion that proceeding before an unaccountable ALJ is a “here-
and-now injury.” 598 U.S. at 191. Axon is again off point, this
time because it concerned the question of a district court’s ju-
risdiction when no agency proceedings had taken place. Id.
at 185. Put simply, Axon addressed whether the plaintiff must
proceed before an agency at all, whereas here the prospective-
injury argument has less force. Starbucks already was before
the ALJ and twice before the Board, and the only prospective
proceeding is a compliance determination. Though we need
not definitively decide the issue today because we lack juris-
diction under the NLRA, it is worth noting that other courts of
appeal have declined to distinguish between retrospective and
prospective relief when applying Collins. See Calcutt, 37 F.4th
at 316 & n.9; CFPB v. Law Offs. of Crystal Moroney, P.C., 63
F.4th 174, 180–81 (2d Cir. 2023); Cmty. Fin. Servs. Ass’n of
Am. v. CFPB, 51 F.4th 616, 631 (5th Cir. 2022), rev’d on other
grounds, 601 U.S. 416 (2024).
Starbucks also requests remand for discovery to estab-
lish its injury claims, but that is not necessary. It can only spec-
ulate that the ALJ’s removal protections created bias in some
way, and it provides us with no reason to think that it could
show any more concrete injury on remand, even if it was al-
lowed to address prospective injury.
In sum, because we lack jurisdiction to hear this consti-
tutional claim and Starbucks lacks standing to raise it, we de-
cline to reach its merits.

-- 15 of 32 --

16
B. Substantial Evidence
The ALJ and the Board concluded that Starbucks vio-
lated the NLRA by terminating Nowakowska and Bussiere and
by reducing Nowakowska’s hours in response to their labor or-
ganization activities. The ALJ and the Board applied the
Wright Line burden-shifting framework. See MCPC, Inc. v.
NLRB, 813 F.3d 475, 487–88 (3d Cir. 2016) (citing and apply-
ing Wright Line, 251 N.L.R.B. 1083 (1980) (subsequent his-
tory omitted)). They first examined whether the Board had
made a prima facie demonstration that the employees’ pro-
tected conduct was a motivating factor in the employer’s deci-
sions. See MCPC, 813 F.3d at 488. The burden then shifted
to the employer to demonstrate that the adverse actions would
have happened even if the employees had not engaged in pro-
tected conduct. Id. Starbucks had to demonstrate by a prepon-
derance of the evidence that it would have taken the same ad-
verse action for legitimate reasons, not merely that it could
have done so. See Carpenter Tech. Corp. & United Steelwork-
ers of Am. Int’l Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, 346 N.L.R.B. 766, 773
(2006); NLRB v. Transp. Mgmt. Corp., 462 U.S. 393, 400
(1983), overruled in part on other grounds by Dir., Off. of
Workers’ Comp. Programs, Dep’t of Lab. v. Greenwich Col-
lieries, 512 U.S. 267, 276 (1994). The ALJ and the Board con-
cluded that the agency met its burden at the first step, but that
Starbucks failed to do so at the second step.
Starbucks’ challenges on appeal pertain to the second
step of this inquiry. It contends that the ALJ and the Board
failed to consider contrary evidence, meaning their conclusions
are not supported by substantial evidence. “The findings of the
Board with respect to questions of fact if supported by substan-
tial evidence on the record considered as a whole shall be con-
clusive.” 29 U.S.C. § 160(e). We conclude the findings—that

-- 16 of 32 --

17
Nowakowska’s hours would not have been reduced, and she
and Bussiere would not have been terminated but for their en-
gagement in protected labor organizing activity—meet the
floor of substantial evidence.2
2 Judge Jordan doubts the ALJ’s and the Board’s factual con-
clusions. In his view, there is a great deal of evidence that
Nowakowska’s and Bussiere’s behavior justified Starbucks’
decision to terminate them. For example, Bussiere repeatedly
did not wear his uniform as required and was so argumentative,
demeaning, insubordinate, and generally obnoxious at work
that even his coworkers complained about him to management.
See App. 22 (listing multiple instances in which Bussiere did
not wear his hat or apron as required, and that “several” em-
ployees told management that his “behavior ha[d] become a
distraction”). Typically, Starbucks would be well within its
rights, as Judge Jordan sees it, to terminate Bussiere for such
behavior—behavior that appears to be the antithesis of the cus-
tomer service that is central to Starbucks’ value proposition. It
appears to Judge Jordan that Bussiere’s labor organizing activ-
ities served primarily to insulate him from discipline for his
blatant deficiencies and enabled him to continue to perform his
work poorly, and much the same can be said about Nowakow-
ska.
Labor unions provide an important means for workers
to organize and protect their rights. But the usefulness of labor
organizing is undermined, in Judge Jordan’s view, when “or-
ganizing” becomes a cover for employees to misbehave and
underperform, to the detriment of their colleagues and the or-
ganization. Nevertheless, he agrees we are bound by the sub-
stantial evidence standard of review, and there is “more than a
scintilla” of evidence to support the ALJ’s and NLRB’s con-
trary conclusions, New Concepts for Living, Inc. v. NLRB, 94

-- 17 of 32 --

18
1. Substantial Evidence: Bussiere’s Termination
We begin with Bussiere’s termination. The ALJ con-
cluded that Starbucks failed to establish that it would have dis-
charged Bussiere absent his protected activities. His termina-
tion paperwork said that he knowingly spread a false rumor—
telling fellow barista Simon Allen that he (Allen) would be
fired—and exhibited disruptive behavior. The ALJ found there
was no credible evidence that Bussiere knew the rumor was
false. Indeed, telling Allen was protected conduct, which Star-
bucks does not challenge on appeal. The ALJ further deter-
mined that discharging Bussiere was motivated by animus
against his other protected activity (labor organizing), as evi-
denced by the email from Vaughan to Dragone in January 2020
quoted above. The Board agreed with the ALJ’s conclusions.
Starbucks contends that it would have terminated Bus-
siere, regardless of his organizing activities, for “disrupting
other workers, making it harder to run the store efficiently.”
Starbucks Opening Br. 36. It argues that the ALJ failed to con-
sider all of the evidence of Bussiere’s disruptive behavior. We
disagree. The ALJ did consider a majority of the examples
Starbucks raised. See App. 21 n.15 (discussing a warning and
coaching Bussiere received for arriving late to work); App. 24
(noting that he left his primary store location short-staffed by
covering shifts at other locations); App. 27 n.32 (addressing his
allegedly distracting and divisive effect on other employees);
App. 26–27 n.30 (discussing an incident in which he spoke
about timing his shift supervisor’s breaks). The only incidents
Starbucks raises that the ALJ did not discuss regarding the ter-
mination are (1) Bussiere’s failure to wear his hat and
F.4th 272, 280 (3d Cir. 2024) (quotation omitted), so we cannot
explore the other ways of reading this record.

-- 18 of 32 --

19
(2) failure to stock the pastry case. But the ALJ considered
these incidents in relation to a separate NLRA violation that
Starbucks does not challenge on appeal, a written warning to
Bussiere issued on November 21, 2019.
More importantly, the ALJ’s finding that Starbucks
would not have fired Bussiere but for his protected activities is
supported by substantial evidence. For instance, the notice of
termination is primarily based on the spreading of the rumor, a
protected activity. It explicitly said that Bussiere had “been
previously counseled and disciplined about disrupting opera-
tions and partners while they are working.” App. 1456. In
context, that statement in the notice does not provide an addi-
tional basis for termination; it merely bolsters Starbucks’ as-
sertion that spreading the rumor was disruptive.
In short, substantial evidence supports the ALJ and the
Board’s conclusion that Bussiere would not have been dis-
charged in the absence of his protected activities. That is
enough even were we inclined on our own to decide otherwise.
2. Substantial Evidence: Nowakowska’s Termination
Turning to Nowakowska’s termination, the ALJ con-
cluded that Starbucks “failed to meet its burden of establishing
that it would have discharged [her] in the absence of her pro-
tected activities” because it did not “demonstrate[] a pattern of
discharging partners for comparable conduct.”3 App. 35. In-
stead, the “pattern overwhelmingly has been to issue written
warnings for rude and unprofessional conduct toward a cus-
tomer or manager.” Id. The Board again agreed with the ALJ’s
findings and conclusions.
3 Starbucks refers to its employees as “partners” in its internal
materials.

-- 19 of 32 --

20
Starbucks argues that the ALJ ignores evidence that
Nowakowska repeatedly violated a company policy prohibit-
ing types of “serious misconduct” that may provide grounds
for “immediate separation from employment,” including “abu-
sive behavior toward partners, customers or vendors.”
App. 1029 (company policy). Starbucks’ citation to the text of
a policy is not particularly persuasive in rebutting the ALJ’s
finding about what happened in practice.
More specifically, Starbucks contends that Nowakow-
ska would have been terminated based on her conduct in Janu-
ary 2020, as part of a pattern of broader infractions, and that
the ALJ’s conclusion to the contrary was unsupported by sub-
stantial evidence. The January incident, as explained above,
involved a customer requesting free tea bags and butter and
Nowakowska responding, “[N]ow you want the butter[?]”.
App. 279. The ALJ concluded that, while “intemperate and
rude,” this was an isolated incident and would not justify ter-
mination in comparison to similar incidents with other employ-
ees. App. 35. The Board agreed. Management did not follow
up about the incident before Nowakowska’s termination, nor
did it ask for her version of events. This suggests that manage-
ment would not have terminated her based on this incident
alone.
As for the pattern of infractions, the ALJ did examine
the events Starbucks argues he ignored. It points to an incident
in which Nowakowska allegedly raised her voice at the store
manager, Vaughan, in front of customers. Nowakowska said
she only spoke loudly to be heard above the store’s din. The
ALJ considered this issue and found Nowakowska’s testimony
more credible than Vaughan’s. The ALJ was in a better posi-
tion to assess credibility than we are on appeal. See, e.g.,
App. 25 n.29 (discussing the ALJ’s assessment of witnesses’

-- 20 of 32 --

21
demeanor). Starbucks also alleges that she “upset a customer
by not letting her know that a drink was ready,” Starbucks
Opening Br. 34, but, in the same bit of testimony on which
Starbucks relies, Nowakowska went on to say that the cus-
tomer was not upset. It then alleges that she “slammed drinks
on the counter and failed to greet or thank customers.” Id.
Nowakowska contested the allegation about slamming cups.
Even if true, Vaughan talked to other baristas about similar
failings, yet they were not subsequently disciplined.
The ALJ also persuasively explained that other baristas
who were fired or issued final warnings for their demeanor to-
ward customers had behaved much worse than Nowakowska.
One such barista was “yelling and swearing at the store man-
ager,” “acting in a threatening manner,” and “arguing with a
disabled customer.” App. 35. Another, who was not dis-
charged, ignored and hurried customers, was distracted by his
phone, made drinks incorrectly, watched TV during his shifts,
refused to help coworkers, mistreated coworkers, mishandled
cash, and failed to close the store properly. Another argued
with and rolled her eyes at a customer, consistently failed to
follow the dress code to the point that she could not work her
shifts because her clothing was unsanitary or unsafe, and stated
in front of customers that she wished to be fired because she
would not get unemployment benefits if she quit. That em-
ployee still received a warning on the dress code issues before
being fired. Another barista irregularly attended his shifts, ex-
hibited bullying behavior, grabbed items out of his coworkers’
hands, pushed his supervisor, refused to talk with his supervi-
sor about the issues, created a scene in front of customers, and
refused to take a break when directed to do so. He received
multiple warnings in response to those incidents. These exam-
ples are arguably more serious than the incidents in which

-- 21 of 32 --

22
Nowakowska was involved, thus supporting the ALJ and the
Board’s conclusions.
In summary, substantial evidence supports the ALJ and
the Board’s conclusion: Starbucks failed to establish that it
would have discharged Nowakowska in the absence of her pro-
tected activities.
3. Substantial Evidence: Nowakowska’s Reduced Hours
As for Nowakowska’s reduction in hours, the ALJ con-
cluded that her protected activity was a motivating factor in
Starbucks’ decision. He relied primarily on two findings: that
Nowakowska’s “reduction[] of 30–40 percent was one of the
most significant of any of those who remained on the sched-
ule,” and that Vaughan told her he reduced her hours in re-
sponse to her workplace performance, referencing a warning
she received on October 29, 2019. App. 21. The ALJ also
concluded that warning was an unfair labor practice in re-
sponse to protected organizing activity, a conclusion that Star-
bucks does not challenge on appeal. The Board affirmed that
determination.
Vaughan’s statement, in combination with the uncon-
tested conclusion that the October 29 warning was an unfair
labor practice, presents substantial evidence that the reduction
in hours was a response to protected organizing activities. We
need not reach whether Nowakowska’s reduction in hours was
proportional to reductions that other employees experienced.
Vaughan’s statement and the October 29 warning, on their
own, are enough to conclude that the ALJ and the Board’s find-
ing is supported by substantial evidence.

-- 22 of 32 --

23
C. After-Acquired-Evidence Defense
Starbucks argues in the alternative that, even if
Nowakowska and Bussiere’s terminations violated the NLRA,
the Board should not award them reinstatement and should
limit backpay. Starbucks explains that it would have fired
them anyway based on after-acquired evidence that they were
recording their coworkers (and, inadvertently, customers)
without their consent in violation of company policy and Penn-
sylvania law. However, substantial evidence supports the con-
clusion that Starbucks was aware of the recording activity be-
fore it terminated Nowakowska and Bussiere, meaning the ev-
idence was not “after-acquired.” Its contention is therefore un-
persuasive.
When an employer would have discharged an employee
on lawful grounds based on evidence acquired after an unlaw-
ful termination, reinstatement is not an appropriate remedy un-
der the NLRA. See 1621 Route 22 W. Operating Co., LLC v.
NLRB (“Somerset”), 825 F.3d 128, 149 n.14 (3d Cir. 2016)
(citing McKennon v. Nashville Banner Pub. Co., 513 U.S. 352,
360 (1995)). “Where an employer seeks to rely upon after-
acquired evidence of wrongdoing, it must first establish that
the wrongdoing was of such severity that the employee in fact
would have been terminated on those grounds alone if the em-
ployer had known of it at the time of the discharge.” McKen-
non, 513 U.S. at 362–63. In other words, to invoke the defense,
the employer must demonstrate (1) the employee engaged in
the misconduct, (2) it was unaware of the misconduct at the
time of the employee’s discharge, and (3) it would have dis-
charged a similarly situated employee for that misconduct
alone. Somerset, 362 N.L.R.B. 961, 962 (2015), enf’d, 825
F.3d 128 (3d Cir. 2016). If the employer makes such a show-
ing, reinstatement is not appropriate and backpay is only

-- 23 of 32 --

24
available from the time of the unlawful termination to when the
employer acquired knowledge of the misconduct. See McKen-
non, 513 U.S. at 361–62. Any ambiguities are resolved against
the employer. John Cuneo, Inc., 298 N.L.R.B. 856, 857 n.7
(1990).
The ALJ found that Nowakowska secretly recorded four
meetings with supervisors. Bussiere made about 30 recordings
of conversations with management. Both testified that they
made the recordings out of fear of retaliation for their organiz-
ing activities. Vaughan testified that he saw Nowakowska and
Bussiere each separately attempt to record a conversation with
him, and he reported an attempted recording to Dragone who
in turn reported it to Henderson. Melissa Maimon, an opera-
tions coach who helped Vaughan when he started his role as a
store manager, corresponded with Vaughan and Dragone about
employees making recordings via email, though the specific
employees were not named. The emails were also shared with
Henderson, Eckensberger, and Nathalie Cioffi, the Partner Re-
sources Director for the Mid-Atlantic Region. Bussiere also
texted Vaughan transcripts of the recordings. Vaughan ap-
proached Nowakowska a week later, perhaps believing she was
the source of the transcripts, and told her she lacked permission
to record him. Bussiere also sent a transcript of a conversation
with Vaughan to Dragone.
Based on this evidence, the ALJ concluded that Star-
bucks “knew or had reason to know” of the recordings, and
hence its after-acquired-evidence defense failed. App. 38. The
ALJ misstated the legal standard because the after-acquired-
evidence defense fails if Starbucks knew about the recordings,
not if it had reason to know. McKennon, 513 U.S. at 362–63.
The Board affirmed the ALJ using the proper standard, finding

-- 24 of 32 --

25
that Starbucks did in fact know that the recordings were taking
place.
Substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that
Starbucks knew about the recordings before it terminated
Nowakowska and Bussiere. It first argues that it was aware
only that the employees attempted to make recordings. But
Starbucks does not rebut the ALJ and the Board’s finding that
Vaughan reported the activity to Dragone, who in turn reported
it to Henderson, nor does it explain away Vaughan’s awareness
of transcriptions of the recordings.
Starbucks also argues that substantial evidence did not
support that it knew the recordings captured conversations be-
tween coworkers (as opposed to between a manager and em-
ployee) and between customers. This position is unpersuasive
because any recording, unless authorized by law or consented
to by the party recorded, is not permitted under Starbucks’ pol-
icy. Neither party argues that mere knowledge of the record-
ings, even without their full scope, would have been insuffi-
cient for Starbucks to terminate the two employees. The Board
came to the same persuasive conclusion:
[Starbucks] insists that[,] in any case, it did not
know the full scope of the employees’ recording
activity and so full relief should be denied, de-
spite what it did know. We reject that argument.
As the Board has found, [Starbucks] knew
enough to establish that (by its own standard) its
no-recording policy and Pennsylvania law had

-- 25 of 32 --

26
been violated—but did not discharge the two em-
ployees on that basis.
App. 44 n.4.
In short, substantial evidence supports the Board’s find-
ing that Starbucks was aware that the employees were engaged
in recording. It took no adverse action against them at that
time, even though the conduct would have warranted termina-
tion under company policy. Starbucks thus has not met its bur-
den to show that it was unaware, when the terminations oc-
curred, of the purportedly after-acquired evidence.
The Board also concluded that, even if Starbucks had
not known before the terminations about the recordings, they
could not justify termination because they were protected un-
der the NLRA. Starbucks contests this conclusion on appeal,
but we decline to reach the question. Because Starbucks knew
about the recordings before the termination, they cannot be
used to justify the firings here regardless of their legal status.
D. Thryv Remedy
In Thryv, the Board determined that, “in all cases in
which [its] standard remedy would include an order for make-
whole relief,” it will also “expressly order that the respondent
compensate affected employees for all direct or foreseeable
pecuniary harms suffered as a result of the respondent’s unfair
labor practice.” 2022 WL 17974951 at *9 (emphasis in origi-
nal). Starbucks argues that this remedy is inconsistent with the
NLRA and that reading the statute otherwise would violate the
Constitution’s Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial and Ar-
ticle III, nondelegation principles, and Starbucks’ due-process
rights.

-- 26 of 32 --

27
As we will explain, the nondelegation and due-process
arguments are forfeited. The order that Starbucks must “com-
pensate Bussiere and Nowakowska for any direct or foreseea-
ble pecuniary harms incurred as a result of the unlawful ad-
verse actions against them, including reasonable search-for-
work and interim employment expenses, if any, regardless of
whether these expenses exceed interim earnings,” App. 7 n.3,
exceeds the Board’s authority under the NLRA. We therefore
vacate that portion of the Board’s order and remand for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion. We need not reach
Starbucks’ constitutional avoidance arguments because the or-
der is not consistent with the statute.
1. Forfeiture of Certain Thryv Remedy Challenges
If Starbucks failed to raise some of its challenges to the
Thryv remedy before the Board, they are forfeited and we lack
jurisdiction to entertain them barring extraordinary circum-
stances.4 See 29 U.S.C. § 160(e); Atl. City Elec. Co. v. NLRB,
5 F.4th 298, 306–07 (3d Cir. 2021). The question for forfeiture
is whether the Board received “adequate notice of the basis for
the objection[s].” NLRB v. FedEx Freight, Inc., 832 F.3d 432,
437 (3d Cir. 2016) (quoting FedEx Freight, Inc. v. NLRB, 816
F.3d 515, 521 (8th Cir. 2016)); see also New Concepts for Liv-
ing, 94 F.4th at 282.
Starbucks failed to raise its nondelegation doctrine ar-
gument—that the Board’s reading of the NLRA would transfer
Congress’s legislative power to the agency without an intelli-
gible principle to constrain that delegation—in its briefing be-
fore the ALJ or the Board or in its motion for reconsideration.
Nor can it rely on the partial dissent in Thryv to put the Board
4 Starbucks does not argue that extraordinary circumstances are
present for its challenges to the Thryv remedy.

-- 27 of 32 --

28
on notice, because the dissent did not address nondelegation.
2022 WL 17974951 at *25–29. Similarly, the due-process ob-
jection that Starbucks raised before the Board—that the Board
failed to allege the specific pecuniary relief sought under
Thryv—is different from the due-process objection it raises on
appeal, that the Board imposed the Thryv remedy without prior
warning. The partial dissent in Thryv also does not touch on
this due-process objection. Id. We therefore hold that the
Board did not receive adequate notice of the bases for Star-
bucks’ nondelegation and due-process objections. Those ob-
jections are thus forfeited.
The Board was on adequate notice, however, regarding
the statutory interpretation and Seventh Amendment objec-
tions.5 Starbucks pointed it to the partial dissent in Thryv and
the concerns that dissent identified, which included the Sev-
enth Amendment. See id. at *25–27. Starbucks further argued
in its briefing before the Board that the NLRA does not allow
monetary damages beyond backpay and benefits, referring also
to the Act’s legislative history. The company described the
Thryv remedy as granting “consequential damages,” App.
1982, and it argued that such a remedy was “not an equitable
concept but instead a legal principle typically preserved for ju-
ries in court,” App. 1980. We therefore hold that Starbucks’
5 Putting the Board on notice of the Seventh Amendment ob-
jection serves to put it on notice of the Article III objection as
well. The Supreme Court has suggested that the two provisions
are connected. Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33,
53 (1989). There is recent scholarship suggesting “unlinking”
them in light of the Court’s decision in Securities and Ex-
change Commission v. Jarkesy, 144 S. Ct. 2117 (2024). See
Note, Unlinking the Seventh Amendment and Article III,
138 Harv. L. Rev. 588 (2024). We take no position on that.

-- 28 of 32 --

29
statutory interpretation and Seventh Amendment challenges
were not forfeited.
2. Statutory Interpretation and the Thryv Remedy
Section 10(c) of the NLRA authorizes the Board to or-
der employers to “cease and desist from” unfair labor practices
and to “take such affirmative action[,] including reinstatement
of employees with or without back pay, as will effectuate the
policies of [the NLRA].” 29 U.S.C. § 160(c). Starbucks as-
serts this section only authorizes equitable relief and the Thryv
remedy allows legal relief in the form of damages.
Traditionally, “a court of equity” could “restrain[] . . . a
contemplated or threatened action” and “require affirmative
action.” Ex parte Lennon, 166 U.S. 548, 556 (1897). By em-
powering the Board to order entities “to cease and desist” and
to take “affirmative action,” Congress granted it the authority
to order equitable remedies. See Samuel L. Bray, The System
of Equitable Remedies, 63 UCLA L. Rev. 530, 553 (2016) (Eq-
uitable remedies “compel action or inaction.”). The NLRA
therefore limits the Board’s remedial authority to equitable, not
legal, relief.
Such a reading is consistent with Supreme Court prece-
dent. In discussing the Board’s “power to order affirmative
relief,” the Court has explained that “Congress did not estab-
lish a general scheme authorizing the Board to award full com-
pensatory damages for injuries caused by wrongful conduct.”
UAW-CIO v. Russell, 356 U.S. 634, 642–43 (1958). And the
Court has compared the Board’s orders to injunctions, which
are “traditionally viewed as ‘equitable.’” Mertens v. Hewitt
Assocs., 508 U.S. 248, 255 (1993).
The Board can still award monetary relief based on what
the employer withheld as a result of an unfair labor practice.

-- 29 of 32 --

30
“[R]einstatement . . . with or without back pay” is, as stated by
Congress, a type of “affirmative action” that the Board can or-
der. 29 U.S.C. § 160(c). Backpay is based on what an em-
ployer has wrongfully withheld from an employee, so it has
been “characterized . . . as an integral part of an equitable rem-
edy, a form of restitution.” Curtis v. Loether, 415 U.S. 189,
197 (1974). And while it is true that “the Board for many years
has ordered that employees be made whole for a variety of
monetary losses suffered as a result of an unfair labor practice,”
Thryv, 2022 WL 17974951 at *25 (Kaplan and Ring, Mem-
bers, concurring in part and dissenting in part), it has done so—
at least until Thryv—on a case-by-case basis, with awards that
provided workers with the benefits of their employment con-
tracts in a way that likely fell under the umbrella of a backpay
award. See, e.g., Va. Elec. & Power Co. v. NLRB, 319 U.S.
533, 540–41 (1943) (refunding mandatory union dues that
were deducted from workers’ wages); NLRB v. Louton, Inc.,
822 F.2d 412, 413–14 (3d Cir. 1987) (including health insur-
ance benefits and medical expenses as part of the backpay
award); Lou’s Transp., Inc. v. NLRB, 945 F.3d 1012, 1026 (6th
Cir. 2019) (including lost retirement benefits as part of the
backpay award). Even though those awards included more
than wages alone, they were closely tied to the equitable rem-
edy of backpay.
That changed with the Board’s decision in Thryv. We
repeat the Board there held that “in all cases in which [its]
standard remedy would include an order for make-whole re-
lief,” it will also “expressly order that the respondent compen-
sate affected employees for all direct or foreseeable pecuniary
harms suffered as a result of the respondent’s unfair labor prac-
tice.” 2022 WL 17974951 at *9 (emphasis in original). De-
spite a vigorous dissent, the Board reasoned that “standardizing
. . . make-whole relief to expressly include the direct or

-- 30 of 32 --

31
foreseeable pecuniary harms suffered by affected employees is
necessary to more fully effectuate the make-whole purposes of
the Act.” Id. at *10.
Our case, like Thryv, purports to grant broad compensa-
tory relief. The Board ordered Starbucks to “compensate Bus-
siere and Nowakowska for any direct or foreseeable pecuniary
harms incurred as a result of the unlawful adverse actions
against them, including reasonable search-for-work and in-
terim employment expenses, if any, regardless of whether
these expenses exceed interim earnings.” App. at 7 n.3. That
Starbucks must “compensate” the employees for losses “in-
curred as a result” of Starbucks’ wrongdoing, App. at 7 n.3,
resembles an order to pay damages. See Damages, Black’s
Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024) (defining “damages” as
“[m]oney . . . ordered to be paid to[] a person as compensation
for loss or injury”). “Compensatory damages ‘are intended to
redress the concrete loss that the plaintiff has suffered by rea-
son of the defendant’s wrongful conduct.’” State Farm Mut.
Auto. Ins. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 416 (2003) (quoting
Cooper Indus. v. Leatherman Tool Grp., 532 U.S. 424, 432
(2001)). Here, the order is plainly meant to compensate Bus-
siere and Nowakowska for losses resulting from Starbucks’ un-
fair labor practices.
Simply put, the Board’s current order exceeds its au-
thority under the NLRA. Thus, we vacate that portion of the
order and remand for further proceedings. While the Board
can certainly award some monetary relief to the employees,
that relief cannot exceed what the employer unlawfully with-
held.
Starbucks, making a constitutional avoidance argument,
contends that the Board’s interpretation of the NLRA would
require a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment and an

-- 31 of 32 --

32
adjudication in federal court under Article III. Because we
agree that the Board’s order is inconsistent with the NLRA, we
need not reach these constitutional questions.
III. CONCLUSION
We lack jurisdiction to consider Starbucks’ constitu-
tional challenge to layered ALJ removal protections, and, in
any event, Starbucks fails to demonstrate injury stemming
from those protections. Substantial evidence supports the
Board’s unfair-labor-practice conclusions with respect to
Nowakowska’s termination and reduction in hours and Bus-
siere’s termination. Substantial evidence also supports the
conclusion that Starbucks knew about the employees’ record-
ing activity prior to their terminations; it cannot rely on that
purportedly after-acquired evidence to avoid reinstatement and
limit backpay. So, we grant the Board’s petition for enforce-
ment and deny Starbucks’ cross-petition for review as to the
constitutionality of the ALJ’s removal protections, whether
substantial evidence supported the Board’s conclusions, and its
ruling on the after-acquired evidence.
We vacate, however, the portion of the Board’s order
that requires Starbucks to “compensate Bussiere and
Nowakowska for any direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms in-
curred as a result of the unlawful adverse actions against them,
including reasonable search-for-work and interim employment
expenses, if any, regardless of whether these expenses exceed
interim earnings.” App. 7 n.3. That portion exceeds the
Board’s authority under the NLRA. We thus remand for fur-
ther proceedings consistent with this opinion.

-- 32 of 32 --