02/18/2026: Still Illegal to Terminate Workers for Discussing Wages
Over broad civility and confidentiality rules are illegal under Stericycle.
B.N.F. Painting, LLC, JD-13-26, 09-CA-318278 (ALJ Decision)
An NLRB Administrative Law Judge ruled on February 17, 2026 that B.N.F. Painting, LLC, a small Cincinnati painting contractor, violated the NLRA by firing an employee for discussing wages and by maintaining overbroad workplace rules that chilled protected activity.
The case arose after employee Christopher Hauser discussed his wage rate with coworkers on two occasions in late 2022. Days after the second conversation, his supervisor texted him that “we heard that you had talked about how much money we are paying you and we can’t have that here” and confirmed he was terminated. The company’s general manager later texted that discussing wages “really shouldn’t have been done” — though he added it was not against the law — while attributing the termination to lack of work.
ALJ Kimberly Sorg-Graves applied the Wright Line burden-shifting framework and found that the General Counsel established a prima facie case of unlawful discharge. She identified animus through the explicit statements in the text messages, the general manager’s repeated expressions of hostility toward wage discussions even at the hearing, and the close timing between Hauser’s last wage conversation and his termination the following Monday. The judge declined to find Hauser not credible merely because he listed the company’s stated reason — lack of work — on his unemployment application. Respondent failed to rebut the prima facie case: it offered no detailed documentary evidence of a work shortage, could not explain why Hauser was not allowed to finish the job he was actively working on, and subsequently rehired and hired new employees before laying off anyone else.
On the coercive statements claim, the judge found the texts from both the supervisor and general manager unambiguously communicated that wage discussions would result in discipline, a straightforward Section 8(a)(1) violation.
Turning to work rules, the ALJ applied the Stericycle standard, evaluating the rules from the perspective of a reasonable employee economically dependent on the employer. The company’s non-disclosure policy classified “compensation data,” “financial information,” “personnel/payroll records,” and “conversations between any persons associated with the company” as confidential information subject to discipline up to termination. The judge found a reasonable employee would interpret these provisions to prohibit discussing wages and working conditions, making them facially overbroad. The employer’s argument that the rules were intended to protect sensitive personal data like garnishment information was unavailing because the text of the rules contained no such limitation. The standards of conduct rules prohibiting “boisterous or disruptive activity,” “insubordination or other disrespectful conduct,” and “unauthorized disclosure of business secrets or confidential information” — without further definition — were likewise found unlawfully overbroad, as undefined terms like “disrespectful” could reasonably be read to encompass protected concerted activity.
The remedy includes reinstatement, full backpay with interest compounded daily, compensation for other foreseeable pecuniary harms under Thryv, tax-consequence compensation, and rescission of the unlawful work rules.
Significant Cases Cited
Wright Line, a Division of Wright Line, Inc., 251 NLRB 1083 (1980): Established the burden-shifting framework used to evaluate whether protected activity was a motivating factor in an adverse employment action.
Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023): Re-established that facially neutral work rules are evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable employee economically dependent on the employer, with ambiguities construed against the employer.
Lafayette Park Hotel, 326 NLRB 824 (1998): Held that work rules violate the NLRA if employees could reasonably construe them to prohibit Section 7 activity, even absent unlawful intent.
Component Bar Products, Inc., 364 NLRB 1901 (2016): Found that rules prohibiting “boisterous or other disruptive activity” and “insubordination or other disrespectful conduct” without additional context are unlawfully overbroad.
Thryv, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 22 (2022): Expanded the Board’s standard remedy to include compensation for direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms beyond lost wages resulting from unlawful employment actions.