Drew-King ex rel. National Labor Relations Board v. Deep Distributors of Greater NY, Inc.
274 F. Supp. 3d 132
| E.D.N.Y | 2017Background
- NLRB (Petitioner) sued Deep Distributors (Respondent) under Section 10(j) of the NLRA seeking temporary injunctive relief after alleged unlawful terminations of employees for concerted, protected activity.
- On July 5, 2016 the court granted a Section 10(j) injunction ordering interim reinstatement of discharged employees within 7 days and a sworn affidavit of compliance within 21 days.
- Respondent sent offers of reinstatement; two employees (Reyes and Sabillon) reported on August 19, 2016. The parties dispute what happened: petitioner says the employer handed job applications, immigration forms, and conditioned work on ID/verification; respondent says it provided routine employee-information forms and wage-notice materials and did not require re-verification.
- NLRB moved to hold Respondent in civil contempt for allegedly failing to make unconditional offers of reinstatement and imposing unlawful conditions. Respondent opposed, asserting compliance and legitimate business reasons for paperwork, if any.
- While the contempt motion was pending, the NLRB issued a final administrative order (June 20, 2017) finding multiple NLRA violations; the court noted the injunctive order terminated by operation of law but that compensatory contempt claims could survive.
- The court denied the contempt motion because disputed facts about what transpired on August 19 created a fair ground of doubt as to wrongfulness, and petitioner failed to prove noncompliance by clear and convincing evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Respondent violated the clear, unambiguous injunction by failing to make unconditional offers of reinstatement | Respondent conditioned reinstatement on completing job applications, providing ID, and possible immigration re-verification | Respondent made unconditional offers; any forms were routine employee-information and wage-notice documents and not preconditions | Denied contempt: factual disputes over what forms were given create a fair ground of doubt; petitioner failed to prove noncompliance by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether requiring job applications or interviews converts an offer into a conditional reinstatement | Such requirements were imposed and therefore invalidly conditioned reinstatement | If any application was requested it served legitimate business purpose | Court reviews doctrine but found factual dispute; did not hold contempt |
| Whether requesting identification or immigration verification during reinstatement violated the injunction | Such requests unlawfully conditioned reinstatement and intimidated employees | No questions about work eligibility were asked; employer complied with IRCA and may verify eligibility when lawful | Court found parties’ accounts conflict; no clear and convincing proof of improper re-verification request |
| Whether the court retains jurisdiction to award compensatory relief after the injunctive order expired | NLRB seeks compensatory relief (back pay, costs) for contempt while injunction was in force | Respondent did not directly contest court’s ability to award compensatory relief in briefs on this point | Court noted injunction expired by operation of law but preserved possibility of compensatory relief; denied contempt on merits so no compensatory award ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Latino Officers Ass'n City of New York, Inc. v. City of New York, 558 F.3d 159 (2d Cir. 2009) (courts should not impose contempt where a fair ground of doubt exists as to wrongfulness)
- Paramedics Electromedicina Comercial, Ltda. v. GE Med. Sys. Info. Techs., Inc., 369 F.3d 645 (2d Cir. 2004) (elements required for civil contempt: clear order, clear and convincing proof of noncompliance, and lack of diligent reasonable efforts to comply)
- Powell v. Ward, 643 F.2d 924 (2d Cir. 1981) (discussion of civil contempt standard)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Craw, 622 F.2d 579 (3d Cir. 1980) (offer of reinstatement must be unconditional)
- Kenston Trucking Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 544 F.2d 1165 (2d Cir. 1976) (offer of reinstatement must be unconditional)
- Polynesian Cultural Ctr. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 582 F.2d 467 (9th Cir. 1978) (requiring reapplication is not an unconditional offer of reinstatement)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Cowell Portland Cement Co., 148 F.2d 237 (9th Cir. 1945) (offer inadequate if it alters employee's rights or conditions of employment)