02/21/2025: Jewish Community Center Is Exempt from NLRA
Brewery illegally fired worker for protected activity.
Pepperjacks, LLC d/b/a Notch 8 Brewery, JD-14-25, 05-CA-328932 (ALJ Decision)
This case concerns whether Pepperjacks of Annapolis Junction (operating as Notch 8 Brewery) violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by discharging employee Rebecca Spitzer for engaging in protected concerted activities.
Pepperjacks operates three adjoining businesses in Annapolis Junction, Maryland: a sandwich shop, coffee house, and brewery. Spitzer was hired as a "beertender" (bartender) at Notch 8 Brewery in March 2023, despite having no prior bartending experience or certification.
Within several weeks of starting her employment, Spitzer began engaging with coworkers who discussed concerns about working long hours without breaks and potential overtime pay issues. Spitzer told coworkers they were entitled to overtime if they worked over 40 hours weekly across the company's four businesses. She advised colleagues they could contact the National Labor Relations Board or Department of Labor regarding these concerns. On May 2, 2023, Spitzer contacted the Maryland Department of Labor about the company's break and overtime practices.
On May 4, 2023, owner Andrew Granzow called Spitzer into his office before her shift began. He angrily told her that "someone he trusted" had informed him she was speaking with other employees about breaks and overtime, and urging them to file cases against him. Granzow stated he would not tolerate such "backdoor" conversations between employees. He then told Spitzer she was not needed and to go home. The same day, Notch 8 advertised on Facebook that they were hiring beertenders.
When Spitzer later texted to ask if she was still scheduled for her next shift, she received no response. After discovering she had been removed from the scheduling app, Spitzer texted again asking if she had been terminated and requesting written confirmation. Instead of providing written confirmation, Granzow attempted to call her several times, which Spitzer did not answer as she preferred communication in writing.
In its defense, the employer claimed Spitzer was not discharged but rather engaged in misconduct and abandoned her job. The company alleged she lacked proper certification, drank alcohol while working, illegally served beer from competing breweries, and committed petty theft. However, the administrative law judge (ALJ) found these claims to be pretextual and unsupported by credible evidence.
The ALJ applied the Wright Line framework to determine whether the General Counsel established a prima facie case that Spitzer's protected activity was a motivating factor in her discharge. The ALJ found that:
Spitzer engaged in protected concerted activity by discussing workplace concerns with coworkers and contacting the Department of Labor.
The employer knew about this activity, as evidenced by Granzow's statements during their May 4 meeting.
The employer demonstrated animus toward this activity through Granzow's statements and the timing of the adverse action.
The burden then shifted to the employer to prove it would have taken the same action regardless of the protected activity. The ALJ concluded the employer failed to establish this defense, noting that its shifting explanations (lack of certification, alleged misconduct, job abandonment) were pretextual.
The ALJ ordered the company to cease and desist from prohibiting employees from discussing working conditions, offer Spitzer reinstatement with backpay plus interest, remove references to her discharge from company files, and post notices about employees' rights.
Significant Cases Cited
Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980): Established the framework for analyzing discrimination cases where both lawful and unlawful motives may be present.
Intertape Polymer Corp., 372 NLRB No. 133 (2023): Identified circumstantial evidence that may indicate discriminatory motive, including timing, contemporaneous unfair labor practices, shifting explanations, and failure to investigate.
Donaldson Bros. Ready Mix, Inc., 341 NLRB 958 (2004): Held that if reasons for an employer's action are pretextual, the employer fails to show it would have taken the same action absent protected conduct.
The Jewish Community Center of Greater Columbus, 09-RC-343754 (Regional Election Decision)
The NLRB Regional Director dismissed a petition for union representation filed by Ohio Council 8, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, which sought to represent teaching employees at the Jewish Community Center of Greater Columbus (JCC-GC)'s Early Childhood Learning Community facilities. The case hinged on whether the employer qualified for a religious exemption from NLRB jurisdiction.
The JCC-GC operates three early childhood education facilities in Columbus, Ohio, serving approximately 400 children from 6 weeks to 5 years old. The facilities provide both childcare and preschool education, including Jewish religious content. The petition concerned approximately 117 teaching employees across these facilities.
Key Facts
The JCC-GC is registered as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization
In IRS documents, it describes itself as "a nonprofit human service agency offering a varied program that is Jewish in nature"
Two facilities share buildings with Jewish religious institutions (Beth Tikvah Synagogue and Columbus Jewish School)
The JCC-GC maintains kashrut (kosher) kitchens supervised by a mashgiach
The organization's Board of Trustees must be members of the Jewish community
Curriculum includes Jewish content, Hebrew language instruction, and celebration of Jewish holidays
Parent and employee handbooks contain information about Jewish holidays and religious practices
Legal Analysis
The Regional Director applied the three-part test from University of Great Falls v. NLRB (adopted by the Board in Bethany College) to determine if the employer qualified as a religious institution exempt from NLRB jurisdiction. Under this test, an institution is exempt if it:
"Holds itself out to students, faculty, and community as providing a religious educational environment"
Is "organized as a nonprofit"
Is "affiliated with, or owned, operated, or controlled, directly or indirectly, by a recognized religious organization, or with an entity, membership of which is determined, at least in part, with reference to religion"
The Director found all three prongs were satisfied:
The JCC-GC holds itself out as providing a religious educational environment through:
Its educational programming described to parents, which includes "Judaic elements seamlessly weaved into the curriculum"
Its "Sheva Early Learning Framework" with seven Hebrew lenses
Religious guidelines in faculty handbooks
Public descriptions of its programming, including Hebrew and Judaics instruction
The JCC-GC is undisputedly a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization.
The JCC-GC is affiliated with recognized religious organizations:
The Va'ad Ho'ir (rabbinic council) through their mashgiach who supervises kosher food preparation
The Beth Tikvah Synagogue, with which it has a lease arrangement
The Board of Trustees requirement that members belong to the Jewish community was noted as supportive evidence
The Director rejected the union's argument that Bethany College should apply only to higher education institutions, finding that the test applies to "religious educational institutions" regardless of student age. The Director also found that the analysis must be limited to avoid First Amendment concerns—the NLRB cannot examine the degree of religiosity or actual religious beliefs, only whether the institution qualifies as religious.
Based on these findings, the Regional Director dismissed the petition, concluding the NLRB lacks jurisdiction over the employer.
Significant Cases Cited
NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 440 U.S. 490 (1979): Supreme Court declined to construe the NLRA to apply to church-operated schools due to First Amendment concerns.
University of Great Falls v. NLRB, 278 F.3d 1335 (2002): D.C. Circuit established a three-part test for determining when educational institutions are exempt from NLRB jurisdiction as religious entities.
Bethany College, 369 NLRB No. 98 (2020): NLRB adopted the Great Falls three-part test for determining religious exemption from Board jurisdiction.
Saint Leo University, 373 NLRB No. 121 (2024): Board reaffirmed the Bethany College framework and clarified that the test may be satisfied by affiliation alone.