The Second Circuit denied the NLRB's petition for enforcement, finding that 48 home health care aides who failed to report to work without notifying their employer engaged in unprotected conduct that created a reasonably foreseeable risk of imminent danger to vulnerable patients.
Special Touch Home Care Services Case Summary
This case involved 48 home health care workers who walked off their jobs without giving notice to their employer, Special Touch Home Care Services. The workers were protesting their working conditions, but they didn't tell the company they wouldn't be showing up for their shifts. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) argued that the workers were protected because they were engaging in collective action about workplace issues.
The court sided with the employer and against the NLRB. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the workers' actions were not protected because they created a serious risk of harm to vulnerable patients who depended on their care. The court found that by not showing up without notice, the workers put patients in immediate danger, which made their protest actions unprotected under labor law.
This ruling matters for workers because it shows that even when employees are organizing or protesting workplace conditions, they can lose legal protection if their actions could endanger others. Healthcare workers and others in safety-sensitive jobs need to be especially careful about how they conduct workplace protests to ensure they maintain legal protection while keeping vulnerable people safe.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Other orders and opinions in National Labor Relations Board v. Special Touch Home Care Services, Inc. from the same court.
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 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.