Skip to main content

National Labor Relations Board v. Pier Sixty, LLC

2nd CircuitApril 21, 2017No. 15-1841-ag (L), 15-1962-ag (XAP)Cited 11 times
Plaintiff WinPier Sixty, LLC
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Kearse, Cabranes, Chin
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

RetaliationWrongful TerminationWhistleblower

Outcome

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals granted the NLRB's application for enforcement and affirmed that Pier Sixty, LLC violated the National Labor Relations Act by discharging employee Hernan Perez in retaliation for union-related activity. The court held that Perez's Facebook post insulting his supervisor and encouraging unionization, while at the outer bounds of protected conduct, remained protected under the NLRA.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened:** Hernan Perez worked at Pier Sixty, a catering company. He posted on Facebook criticizing his supervisor and encouraging his coworkers to join a union. The company fired him for this Facebook post, claiming it was inappropriate and insulting toward management. **What the Court Decided:** The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the National Labor Relations Board and against Pier Sixty. The court found that the company illegally fired Perez for union-related activities. Even though Perez's Facebook post was harsh and insulting toward his supervisor, the court determined it was still protected speech under federal labor law because it was connected to encouraging union organizing among his coworkers. **Why This Matters for Workers:** This ruling strengthens workers' rights to discuss unions and workplace issues on social media, even when those discussions include criticism of supervisors or management. Workers can't be fired simply for encouraging unionization online, even if their language is strong or unflattering toward their bosses. However, there are still limits – the speech must be related to legitimate workplace concerns or union activities to receive protection under federal labor law.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.