Unite Here Local 355 v. Mulhall
The Supreme Court dismissed this case without deciding it, after having already heard briefing and oral argument on whether an employer's organizing-assistance promises to a union count as an illegal payment under federal labor law.
Three justices dissented, arguing the Court should have asked for more briefing on jurisdictional questions instead of walking away, since lower courts remain split on an issue that could expose employers and union officials to criminal liability.
How it got here: The Eleventh Circuit ruled the alleged promises could violate federal labor law; the Supreme Court granted review to resolve a circuit split, then dismissed the case.
The Case in Depth
What happened
A hotel workers' union and a casino/racetrack company had reached an agreement in which the company promised to stay neutral during the union's organizing campaign, give the union access to nonpublic areas, and share employee contact information. A company employee sued, arguing these promises amounted to an illegal payment from the employer to the union under the antibribery provisions of federal labor law.
The question before the Court
Does a company break federal labor law by promising to stay neutral, give a union access to its workplace, and hand over an employee contact list?
Why it matters
Employers and unions in the middle of organizing campaigns are left without a clear national answer on whether common cooperation agreements — neutrality pledges, facility access, and employee contact lists — risk criminal prosecution under federal labor law. The circuit split the Court had agreed to resolve remains in place, so the legal risk varies depending on where a company operates.
What changes now
Because the Court dismissed the case rather than deciding it, the Eleventh Circuit's ruling below stays on the books for that circuit, and the disagreement among appeals courts over the scope of the antibribery provision remains unresolved nationally. The legal question could return to the Court in a future case, and Congress or the Department of Labor could also address the underlying issue.
What this does not decide
The Court did not decide whether employer promises of neutrality, facility access, or employee contact lists violate the Labor Management Relations Act's antibribery provisions, whether the case was moot, whether the plaintiff had standing, or whether the statute even allows private lawsuits at all.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent — Justice Breyer
Justice Breyer argued the Court should not have dismissed the case but instead asked for more briefing on two threshold jurisdictional questions: whether the case was moot because the underlying contract had expired, and whether the plaintiff had standing to sue at all. He also wanted briefing on whether the statute even allows private lawsuits, since a 1962 case's suggestion that it does is now doubtful given the Court's more recent skepticism of implied private rights of action. He warned that leaving the circuit split unresolved threatens employers and union officials with criminal liability for common organizing agreements.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court had granted review to resolve a disagreement among federal appeals courts over whether an employer's promises of neutrality, facility access, and an employee list to a union count as a prohibited 'thing of value' under the antibribery provision of the Labor Management Relations Act.
- After receiving briefs and hearing oral argument, the Court instead dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted, meaning it decided not to resolve the question after all.
- The per curiam order gave no reasoning beyond the one-line dismissal, leaving the underlying legal question about the scope of the antibribery provision unresolved.