Dupuy v. National Labor Relations Board
420 U.S. App. D.C. 96
| D.C. Cir. | 2015Background
- Jamison J. Dupuy was terminated in 2001 by Northeastern Land Services for allegedly disclosing compensation terms; he filed an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB.
- The NLRB issued a remedial order requiring reinstatement or substantially equivalent job and make-whole backpay with interest calculated under New Horizons; the First Circuit enforced the order and later reaffirmed enforcement after Board rehearing.
- A Board Regional Director negotiated a post-judgment settlement with Northeastern (without Dupuy’s consent) providing reinstatement and an eleven-year installment payment of backpay but waiving interest that would have accrued during the payment period.
- The Regional Director and Board concluded the offered position’s pay and terms were consistent with current similarly situated employees; Dupuy objected, arguing the waiver of payment-period interest, inadequate proof of equivalence of non-wage terms, and that personal liability should be imposed on corporate officers.
- The Board denied Dupuy’s appeals in short orders; the D.C. Circuit reviewed and found the Board legally justified in using current employees as the relevant comparator for reinstatement but held the Board lacked adequate evidence and failed to justify waiving court-enforced interest or to explain departing from precedent about modifying court-enforced orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board could waive payment-period interest required by the court‑enforced remedial order | Dupuy: Board lacked authority to waive interest; interest until full payment was part of the First Circuit’s make-whole judgment | Board: Settlement provided immediate relief and reduced litigation risk; it may compromise post-judgment remedies | Court: Board could not unilaterally waive interest in a court-enforced order and failed to justify departing from long-standing precedent forbidding such modification |
| Whether the Board may modify terms of a remedial order once a court has enforced it | Dupuy: Once enforced, only the enforcing court may modify the order | Board: Argued authority to compromise enforcement terms to obtain compliance | Held: Board’s longstanding position and circuit precedent prohibit modifying court-enforced orders; Board gave no reasoned justification for its contrary action |
| Whether Northeastern’s reinstatement offer was "substantially equivalent" to the job Dupuy would have had absent the discharge | Dupuy: Offer reduced pay/benefits/security and lacked material terms; not equivalent | Board/Northeastern: Measure equivalence by reference to terms offered to current employees; wage parity shown | Held: Using current employees as comparator is legally reasonable, but Board failed to produce substantial evidence about non‑wage terms; remand required to analyze all material terms |
| Whether personal liability (veil piercing) should be imposed on Northeastern’s CEO or directors | Dupuy: Corporate form should be pierced to reach individuals given corporate distributions and reductions | Board: No basis to pierce; insufficient unity of interest or evidence of injustice/fraud | Held: Board reasonably declined to pierce the veil; Dupuy pointed to no record evidence undermining that conclusion |
Key Cases Cited
- New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB, 560 U.S. 674 (Supreme Court) (quorum requirement for Board panels)
- Scepter, Inc. v. NLRB, 448 F.3d 388 (D.C. Cir.) (Board may not modify a court‑enforced order)
- Phelps Dodge Corp. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 177 (Supreme Court) (make-whole/reinstatement aims to restore status quo absent discrimination)
- Northeastern Land Services, Ltd. v. NLRB, 645 F.3d 475 (1st Cir.) (First Circuit’s enforcement of the Board’s remedial order)
- Amalgamated Utility Workers v. Consolidated Edison Co., 309 U.S. 261 (Supreme Court) (charging parties retain right to contest final Board orders; limited discussion of enforcement remedies)