Tag: National Labor Relations Board

What Employers Need to Know About President Trump’s Removal of NLRB Member Gwynne Wilcox and Two EEOC Commissioners

Andrew I. Herman and Gabrielle I. Weiss ●

In a significant move, President Donald Trump has fired a member of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) without reference to the statutory protections that typically shield Board members from being removed without cause. While incoming administrations, regardless of party, have historically taken steps to populate federal appointments with individuals aligned with their goals and policies, the Trump Administration is doing so at a pace and intensity rarely, if ever, seen before. President Trump’s removal of NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox (“Wilcox”) has immediate impact on employers, unions, and workers, as it leaves the Board without the quorum needed to issue decisions in labor cases. The president’s authority to remove Board members will be tested in court and could impact the future of the NLRB and the landscape of U.S. labor law.

Background

In September 2023, the Senate confirmed Wilcox to a second five-year term through the end of August 2028. Former Chairman and Democrat appointee Lauren McFerran’s (“McFerran”) term expired on December 16, 2024, after the Senate voted not to advance her nomination, signaling the Republican-led Senate’s intention to change the Board’s composition. At the time of McFerran’s non-renewal, there was already a vacancy on the Board, leaving two possible spots for President Trump to fill upon taking office. President Trump’s removal of Wilcox on January 27, 2025, now leaves three of the five seats for NLRB members vacant and eliminates what would have otherwise been a Democratic majority on the Board. The only current members (for now) are Republican appointee Marvin Kaplan, who the president named the Chair of the NLRB on Inauguration Day, and Democrat appointee David Prouty, whose term is set to end in August 2025.

Impact on the NLRB and Employers

The immediate consequence of Wilcox’s removal is the NLRB’s lack of a quorum, meaning it cannot issue decisions and will leave many pending cases in limbo. The Board’s authority to issue decisions will be halted until a quorum is restored, either through the Senate confirming a new member appointed by President Trump or Wilcox being reinstated.

For employers, this development could be a double-edged sword. On one hand, the freeze in NLRB decisions may delay rulings that could have been unfavorable to employers with pending cases before the Board. On the other hand, during the Biden administration, the Board issued a number of decisions that were favorable for unions and expanded protections for employee rights under the National Labor Relations Act. Without any further rulings, those decisions will remain the law for now. It is widely expected that a Trump NLRB would look to overturn much of that precedent and issue pro-employer decisions. The Board’s ability to do that is now hindered until the member seats are filled.

President Trump’s Constitutional Justifications

President Trump’s legal justification for the removal of Wilcox hinges on a 2020 Supreme Court decision in Seila Law LLC v. CFPB. In Seila Law, the Supreme Court held the executive authority did not extend to removal of members of multi-member agency boards that are: 1) balanced on partisan lines; and 2) perform legislative and judicial functions but not executive functions. Such a “removal shield” prohibits the president from exercising executive authority to remove members from agency boards if meeting these conditions. In firing Wilcox, President Trump specifically cited Seila Law, claiming the NLRB does not qualify for the exception because it is not balanced on partisan lines and because it exercises executive powers, such as issuing regulations and pursuing enforcement actions in federal court.  

President Trump’s interpretation will be challenged in federal court. Wilcox has already indicated her intention to pursue “all legal avenues” to contest her removal, citing long-standing Supreme Court precedent that protects NLRB members from being fired without cause. In addition to addressing the extent of presidential powers to remove NLRB members, the legal fight over Wilcox’s firing ultimately may provide a precedent for companies and the numerous lawsuits that have been filed over the past year pursuing constitutional challenges against the NLRB, including on the basis that the Board’s members and administrative law judges are unconstitutionally shielded from removal by the president.

Simultaneous Overhauls at the EEOC

President Trump’s recent actions are not limited to the NLRB. On January 28, 2025, President Trump also fired Jocelyn Samuels and Charlotte Burrows, two Democratic commissioners of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), along with the EEOC’s general counsel, Karla Gilbride. This move eliminates the Democratic majority on the EEOC. By dismissing the EEOC commissioners, President Trump has taken steps to advance his second-term civil rights law agenda.  

Conclusion

President Trump’s removal of an NLRB member and two EEOC commissioners reflects the administration’s broader strategy to reshape independent agencies to align with the administration’s policy goals. President Trump’s assertion of power to remove NLRB members and EEOC commissioners marks a pivotal moment in labor relations and regulatory oversight of employers. The legal battles and policy shifts that follow are expected to shape the landscape for employers, creating a period of uncertainty. Attorneys in the Labor & Employment practice group at Blank Rome are prepared to assist as potential changes in labor law enforcement and agency operations arise.

Trump Fires NLRB General Counsel

Andrew I. Herman ●

In a much-anticipated move, President Donald Trump has fired Jennifer Abruzzo, the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”). Trump’s action follows a precedent set by former President Joe Biden. On his first day in office four years ago, Biden ousted Peter Robb, the NLRB’s general counsel during the first Trump administration. During her tenure, Abruzzo aggressively sought to expand workers’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act, empower unions, and protect those seeking to organize workers. 

The removal of Abruzzo opens the door for President Trump to appoint a new general counsel for the Board. The White House has yet to announce Abruzzo’s replacement, but the president’s transition team for the NLRB was led by Robb and his former deputy, Alice Stock. The new U.S. Labor Board’s prosecutor is expected to adopt a more pro-business stance. It remains to be seen, however, if that agenda will be influenced by Trump’s campaign rhetoric and promises in support of workers and union members. Many have noted that Trump’s choice to lead the Department of Labor, Representative Lori Chavez-DeRemer, is an unusually pro-union Republican whose candidacy was backed by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters in part because she had backed the Protecting the Right to Organize Act as a Congresswoman. 

Continue reading “Trump Fires NLRB General Counsel”

NLRB GC Declares (Virtually) All Non-Compete Agreements Illegal

Jason E. Reisman  ●

Snapshot Summary

Yes, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) General Counsel (“GC”) says virtually all non-compete agreements are illegal. However, although this is the GC’s strong personal view, she does not directly make the law or establish precedent—NLRB action is still required to start that process. Even if the NLRB acts, the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) only covers non-supervisory employees. This is something to monitor, but not something that should cause you to automatically refrain from strategic and reasonable use of non-compete agreements. And, yes, it coincidentally aligns with the proposed rule from the Federal Trade Commission (see our prior alert here).

Background

Though employers uniformly do not enjoy listening to the ruminations of NLRB GC Jennifer Abruzzo, it is clear that all employers need to pay very close attention to what she says and how she says it. The latest off-the-wall proclamation came in a May 30 memorandum, where she asserted her position that non-compete provisions contained in employment contracts and severance agreements nearly always violate federal labor law by preventing former employees from working for competitors. Notably, she previewed this position in March when she issued another memo providing “guidance” on severance agreement provisions in the wake of the NLRB’s McLaren Macomb decision (see our prior blog post here).

Continue reading “NLRB GC Declares (Virtually) All Non-Compete Agreements Illegal”

NLRB’s General Counsel Foreshadows More Expansive Restrictions on Separation Agreements Following the Board’s McLaren Macomb Decision

Andrew I. Herman, Garrett P. Buttrey, and Jason E. Reisman


Overview: On February 21, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or Board) found two routinely standard separation agreement provisions—confidentiality as to the agreement and non-disparagement—to be unlawful when included in an agreement offered to an employee. McLaren Macomb, 372 NLRB No. 58 (2023). This week NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo issued guidance in an effort to clarify the scope and impact of that decision. The General Counsel’s guidance takes an expansive view of McLaren Macomb, foreshadowing more restrictions on separation agreement and other employment agreements.

In McLaren Macomb, the NLRB held that employers violate the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) when they offer severance agreements with provisions that would restrict employees in the exercise of their NLRA rights. The Board explained that, where an agreement “unlawfully conditions receipt of severance benefits on the forfeiture of statutory rights, the mere proffer of the agreement itself violates the [NLRA] because it has a reasonable tendency to interfere with or restrain the exercise” of NLRA rights.

NLRB General Counsel Takes an Expansive View of McLaren Macomb

The guidance from General Counsel Abruzzo—the chief investigator and prosecutor of violations of the NLRA—is a warning to employers about her expansive views of the reach of the McLaren Macomb decision. In her memorandum, the General Counsel provides the following insight about McLaren Macomb’s broader implications:

Continue reading “NLRB’s General Counsel Foreshadows More Expansive Restrictions on Separation Agreements Following the Board’s McLaren Macomb Decision”

Quick Flashback—NLRB Overruled Obama Board’s “Independent Contractor” Test

Rosemary McKenna

Earlier this year, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “the Board”)—with its 3-to-1 Republican-appointed majority—returned to its long-standing common-law test for determining whether workers are independent contractors (“ICs”) or employees, expressly overruling an Obama-era decision, which it said impermissibly altered the test by severely limiting the significance of “entrepreneurial opportunity” to the analysis. The importance of “independent contractor” status lies in the fact that ICs are not covered by the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).

In SuperShuttle DFW, Inc. and Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1338 (Case No. 16-RC-010963), the Trump Board addressed the issue of whether franchisees who operated shared-ride vans were ICs and thus excluded from coverage under the NLRA. Relying on common-law agency analysis, the Board upheld a regional director’s decision finding the franchisees to be ICs. That traditional common-law analysis involves application and consideration of the following factors: Continue reading “Quick Flashback—NLRB Overruled Obama Board’s “Independent Contractor” Test”