03/24/2025: Board Reinstates Illegally Fired Stripper Identified Only As "Peach"
This is Gwynne Wilcox's first published decision since returning to the NLRB.
Dumbo 301 LLC D/B/a Magic Tavern, 374 NLRB No. 22, 19-CA-322582 (Published Board Decision)
The National Labor Relations Board issued a default judgment against Dumbo 301 LLC d/b/a Magic Tavern, an adult entertainment club in Portland, Oregon. The case arose from charges filed by the Actors' Equity Association alleging violations of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act.
Notably, this is the first published decision that the NLRB has issued since Member Gwynne Wilcox returned to work on March 11 after being fired by Trump and subsequently reinstated by the DC district court. The first footnote in the decision explains the contested nature of Wilcox’s current status as NLRB Member.
Background and Procedural History
The union filed charges on July 27, 2023, which were later amended. The General Counsel issued a complaint on August 6, 2024, but the Respondent failed to file an answer. On November 20, 2024, the General Counsel moved for default judgment, which the Board granted after the Respondent did not respond to the Notice to Show Cause.
Facts
The union was certified as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the club's dancers on September 15, 2023. In March 2024, an employee with the stage name "Peach" raised workplace safety and workflow concerns. On March 26, 2024, the Respondent terminated Peach's employment because of her protected concerted activities.
The Respondent also prohibited employees from making statements critical of the company to customers and threatened employees with discipline if they did so. When employees engaged in a strike beginning in April 2023 to protest unsafe working conditions, the Respondent's majority owner, Benjamin Donahue, engaged in physical intimidation on July 21, 2024, by throwing picket signs at strikers, pushing picketers, and setting off fireworks in their direction. Donahue also surveilled the protected concerted activities of employees engaged in picketing.
Legal Analysis and Findings
The Board found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by:
Discharging employee Peach for engaging in protected concerted activities
Prohibiting employees from making statements critical of the company to customers
Threatening employees with discipline for making such critical statements
Responding with physical violence toward employees engaged in picketing
Surveilling employees engaged in protected concerted activities
Remedies Ordered
The Board ordered the following remedies:
Reinstatement of Peach to her former position
Removal of references to the unlawful discharge from Peach's personnel file
Posting of a notice at the facility
The Board also applied the Thryv remedy, requiring the Respondent to compensate Peach for direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms resulting from the unlawful discharge. Chairman Kaplan dissented on this point, arguing that the Thryv remedy exceeds the Board's statutory remedial authority, noting that the Third Circuit had reached the same conclusion in a recent case, while the Ninth Circuit had enforced it.
The Board denied the General Counsel's additional requested remedies, including electronic distribution of rights explanations, notice reading, and a letter of apology. Member Prouty would have granted the request for notice reading for reasons stated in his concurrence in a previous case.
Significant Cases Cited
Thryv, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 22 (2022): Established remedy for compensating discharged employees for direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms.
NLRB v. Starbucks Corp., 125 F.4th 78 (3d Cir. 2024): Found that the Thryv remedy exceeds the Board's statutory remedial authority.
International Union of Operating Engineers v. NLRB, 127 F.4th 58 (9th Cir. 2025): Enforced the Thryv remedy.
F.W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950): Established method for computing backpay.
Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010): Established that interest on backpay is compounded daily.
Starbucks Corporation, JD(SF)-06-25, 16-CA-304046 (ALJ Decision)
This case addresses allegations that Starbucks Corporation violated sections 8(a)(1), 8(a)(3), and 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act at three cafés in Texas (Oltorf and 24th Street in Austin, and Shepherd in Houston) during union organizing campaigns by Workers United.
Administrative Law Judge Robert A. Ringler examined numerous allegations across the three locations, finding that Starbucks committed multiple unfair labor practices while dismissing others.
At the Oltorf café, the ALJ found Starbucks unlawfully created an impression of surveillance, threatened employees regarding unionization, solicited grievances to undermine union support, and issued directives prohibiting union discussions. However, Judge Ringler rejected allegations that Starbucks' "back to basics" campaign (re-enforcing time and attendance policies) was discriminatory, since it began prior to union activity and applied district-wide.
At the 24th Street café, violations included unlawfully removing union literature from break areas, barring employees from wearing union pins while allowing other pins, increasing availability requirements for a pro-union employee, and firing two key union organizers (Caro Gonzalez and Josue DeLeon). The judge found particularly suspect DeLeon's termination, which occurred on the last day for mail ballots in a union election. The ALJ also determined Starbucks violated the Act by unilaterally changing scheduling practices without bargaining with the union.
At the Shepherd café, violations included unlawfully soliciting grievances and granting benefits to undermine union support, threatening employees about transfers, barring group texts about union matters, and firing a union organizer (Madeline Gierkey) based on pretextual reasons. Starbucks also refused to bargain over safety issues and denied information requests from the union.
The ALJ ordered Starbucks to cease and desist from the violations, reinstate the discharged employees, make them whole for lost earnings, remove the unlawful disciplinary actions from their files, rescind the unilateral changes where requested by the union, and bargain in good faith regarding safety issues. The judge also ordered Starbucks to post notices about the violations.
Significant Cases Cited
Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980): Established the framework for analyzing whether an employment action violates §8(a)(3), requiring proof that protected activity was a motivating factor.
Westwood Healthcare Center, 330 NLRB 935 (2000): Set forth a multi-factor test to determine whether employer questioning constitutes unlawful interrogation.
Frontier Telephone of Rochester, Inc., 344 NLRB 1270 (2005): Provided the standard for determining whether employer statements create an unlawful impression of surveillance.
Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023): Established framework for analyzing facially neutral work rules that may be reasonably interpreted to restrict Section 7 rights.
Care One at New Milford, 369 NLRB No. 109 (2020): Held that employers do not have a duty to bargain over discretionary discipline issued under established policies before a first contract.