A federal appeals court in New York has overturned a National Labor Relations Board ruling that found Starbucks violated workers’ labor rights by prohibiting union apparel at its flagship Manhattan store. The decision, issued by the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals, is the latest in a series of rulings scaling back the labor board’s authority over workplace dress codes.

The case centered on Starbucks’ 23,000-square-foot store in Manhattan’s Meatpacking District, which features an on-site roastery, coffee and cocktail bars, and retail space. Workers at the store, which has a described ‘steampunk hipster vibe,’ wear brown aprons and collared shirts or turtlenecks in muted colors, with the option to wear a handful of pre-approved shirts and pins supporting causes including military veterans, Black Lives Matter, and Hispanic Heritage Month.

Before the store unionized in 2022, becoming one of the first Starbucks locations to do so, the company prohibited workers from wearing union t-shirts and more than one pin. The NLRB ruled in 2024 that this policy interfered with workers’ rights to advocate for unionizing and that Starbucks failed to show legitimate justification. Since then, workers at 700 other US Starbucks stores have voted to join unions.

The 2nd Circuit panel said the NLRB failed to properly balance Starbucks’ ability to present its preferred image to customers with workers’ rights to encourage unionizing. The court sent the case back to the labor board to apply a ‘more evenly measured balancing test.’ The NLRB now has a 3-1 Republican majority appointed by President Trump, a shift from the Democratic majority that first decided the case.

The ruling follows a pattern of appeals courts reversing NLRB dress code decisions. Last year, a St. Louis-based court ruled that Home Depot had the right to bar employees from writing ‘Black Lives Matter’ on their aprons. In 2023, another court found Tesla could bar California factory workers from wearing union t-shirts.

For New York’s labor community, the decision represents a setback for union organizing efforts in the retail sector. The case highlights the tension between employer brand control and worker expression that has become increasingly contentious as unionization efforts spread across the city’s service industry.

Source: NY Post