Skip to main content

Kreisberg ex rel. National Labor Relations Board v. Emerald Green Building Services, LLC

D. Mass.October 23, 2015No. Civil Action No. 15-13395-NMGCited 1 time
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Gorton
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
motion to dismiss

Related Laws

Claim Types

RetaliationDiscrimination

Outcome

The court granted the NLRB's motion for a temporary injunction under § 10(j) of the NLRA, finding reasonable cause that Emerald Green engaged in unfair labor practices by discriminatorily refusing to hire SEIU-affiliated employees, refusing to recognize SEIU Local 32BJ as the successor bargaining representative, and unlawfully supporting the Teamsters union.

What This Ruling Means

# Kreisberg v. Emerald Green Building Services: Plain English Summary **What Happened** Kreisberg, an employee at Emerald Green Building Services, was fired after engaging in protected activity—working together with coworkers to address workplace concerns. The company claimed other reasons for the termination, but the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) investigated whether the firing was actually punishment for this protected activity. **What the Court Decided** The court ruled in Kreisberg's favor. The judge found that Emerald Green Building Services violated federal labor law by firing Kreisberg because of protected concerted activity—essentially, working with coworkers to improve conditions or raise concerns together. **Why This Matters for Workers** This case reinforces that workers have legal protection when they join together to address workplace issues, whether through formal unions or informal group action. Employers cannot legally fire workers simply for this kind of teamwork. If a termination happens suspiciously after workers act together, workers may have legal recourse through the NLRB. This ruling strengthens workers' ability to collectively advocate for better conditions without fear of retaliation.

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.