Three years after employees at a Virginia Starbucks voted to unionize, a federal labor judge found unlawful firings, discriminatory discipline and a failure to bargain over workplace changes. The ruling is not yet final, and the workers’ remedies remain unresolved.
In January 2023, employees at a Starbucks in Ashburn, Virginia, accomplished something thousands of workers across the country have attempted: they voted to unionize.
The vote was decisive. Eleven employees supported representation by Workers United, five opposed it, and the National Labor Relations Board certified the union as their exclusive bargaining representative on January 18.
Winning the election, however, did not end the dispute.
Within weeks, one union supporter had been fired. Other employees subsequently received final written warnings for attendance violations, management enforced dress-code restrictions against union apparel, and the company introduced a new certification requirement affecting employees who trained newly hired baristas.
More than three years later, on September 30, 2026, Administrative Law Judge Michael A. Rosas concluded that Starbucks had violated federal labor law at its Ashbrook Marketplace Plaza location.
The judge found that the company unlawfully fired one employee because of her union support, discriminated against three others through disciplinary warnings, selectively enforced its dress code, and changed a workplace requirement without giving the union an opportunity to bargain.
Perhaps more revealing than the individual allegations was the evidence underlying those conclusions. Company records showed that employees who committed comparable attendance violations sometimes received lesser discipline or none at all.
The judge also found that Starbucks had failed to produce certain subpoenaed disciplinary records and drew an adverse inference against the company.
The findings appear in the administrative law judge decision, JD-63-26, involving consolidated NLRB cases 05-CA-318025 and 05-CA-324434.
There is an important qualification: this is an administrative law judge’s decision and recommended order, not a final ruling by the Board. Starbucks disputed the allegations, and several were dismissed. As of October 14, the NLRB continued to list the case as awaiting Board action.
That leaves a rather consequential question unanswered: What ultimately happens to employees whose rights a federal judge says were violated years earlier?
The election was settled. The labor dispute was not.
Organizing at the Ashbrook Starbucks began in earnest in November 2022. Employees sought representation through the Mid-Atlantic Regional Joint Board, Workers United, affiliated with the Service Employees International Union. A representation petition was filed November 29.
The January 9, 2023 election produced an 11-to-5 result in favor of the union, according to the NLRB’s representation case records. The agency certified the bargaining unit nine days later.
That certification established Workers United as the exclusive representative of eligible baristas and shift supervisors at the store.
According to Judge Rosas’s decision, national-level bargaining subsequently occurred between Starbucks and the union, but there had been no bargaining specific to the Ashbrook location.
The distinction matters. A successful union election creates a legal bargaining relationship. It does not automatically produce a collective bargaining agreement, nor does it resolve disputes over workplace policies, disciplinary practices or management decisions.
Ashbrook employees continued organizing and protesting after certification. The decision describes union demonstrations, employees distributing flyers, and participation in strikes during 2023. It also recounts disagreements over management’s characterization of absences associated with protected labor activity.
The dispute eventually became a collection of allegations concerning how Starbucks treated employees who supported the union.
A firing over profanity, and a question of consistency
Nicole Kang began working at the Ashbrook store in August 2022. She openly supported unionization, signed organizing documents and regularly wore a union pin on her apron.
On February 20, 2023, approximately one month after the union’s certification, Starbucks terminated her employment over an incident involving profanity.
Employers generally may enforce workplace conduct policies. The central legal question was whether Starbucks would have taken the same action against Kang in the absence of her union activity.
The judge concluded that it would not.
According to the decision, Kang had not previously been disciplined or counseled for using profanity at work. The record also established that profanity was commonplace among employees at the store.
After evaluating the circumstances, management’s explanations and the evidence concerning workplace practices, Rosas concluded that Kang’s termination violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act.
He recommended that Starbucks offer Kang reinstatement to her former position, or a substantially equivalent one, without loss of seniority or other employment rights.
He also recommended backpay with interest, compensation for qualifying employment-related expenses and other financial losses, and removal of the termination from her personnel records.
These are recommended remedies, not confirmed payments or employment actions. The available record does not establish that Kang has been reinstated or compensated.
The attendance records told a different story
The disciplinary allegations involving three other union supporters presented an especially revealing evidentiary problem.
Starbucks issued final written warnings to Gio Carvalho on February 20, Crystal Jewett on June 2, and Gabrielle Duritsa on August 4, 2023.
The judge did not conclude that these employees had perfect attendance records or that management invented their violations.
Carvalho agreed to cover a shift and failed to appear. Jewett failed to notify the store that she would miss a mandatory tasting. Duritsa picked up a shift and failed to provide proper notice that she could not cover it.
Those violations were established. But an employer’s ability to discipline workers for legitimate violations does not permit it to impose disproportionately severe punishment because employees support a union.
The question was whether Starbucks applied its attendance rules consistently. The evidence suggested otherwise.
The judge examined disciplinary practices at Ashbrook and other stores in the same district. His decision identified ten no-call/no-show incidents at Ashbrook between June 26 and December 26, 2023, that did not result in disciplinary action. Other employees received ordinary written warnings.
Meanwhile, the decision identified several union supporters who received final written warnings for attendance violations. The judge considered the seriousness of the incidents, employees’ prior disciplinary histories and comparable management decisions.
Not every comparison was identical. Some employees had more extensive disciplinary records, and the judge acknowledged those distinctions.
Nevertheless, he concluded that the final written warnings issued to Carvalho, Jewett and Duritsa constituted unlawful discrimination because of their union support.
The findings expose an important distinction that can disappear in disputes over workplace discipline: an employee may genuinely violate a company rule while the punishment imposed for that violation is nevertheless unlawful.
The records Starbucks did not produce
The disciplinary evidence was complicated by a separate dispute over company records. During the proceedings, counsel for the NLRB’s General Counsel sought documents concerning attendance violations and disciplinary decisions at the Ashbrook store.
Starbucks maintained that it had produced the responsive documents in its possession.
The judge found that the company had failed to produce certain responsive disciplinary records despite being ordered to comply with a subpoena. He consequently granted requests for adverse inferences concerning the missing evidence.
In particular, he concluded that the unproduced records would have undermined Starbucks’ assertion that no-call/no-show violations automatically resulted in final written warnings.
That conclusion mattered because the company was defending the severity of disciplinary action against employees who supported the union.
The inference did not stand alone. The judge also relied on available daily coverage reports, disciplinary documents, witness testimony and examples of employees receiving different treatment for attendance violations.
The records dispute therefore reinforced an already substantial body of comparative evidence.
It is important not to extend the finding beyond what the decision establishes. The judge did not determine that Starbucks deliberately destroyed records or intentionally concealed evidence. Those would be separate allegations requiring additional proof.
What the decision does establish is that the company’s incomplete production carried evidentiary consequences in a proceeding examining whether its disciplinary practices were discriminatory.
The dress code became another battleground
The case also examined Starbucks’ enforcement of its dress-code and personal-appearance policies.
Employees wore union insignia and clothing associated with their organizing activities. The judge reviewed management’s responses and the treatment of union apparel compared with other clothing and workplace practices.
He concluded that Starbucks selectively and disparately enforced its dress code on April 7, 2023, interfering with employees’ rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
The finding illustrates how seemingly ordinary workplace rules can become legally significant when enforcement is directed at protected organizing activity.
A company may maintain legitimate dress standards. But applying those standards differently to suppress union expression presents a separate legal question. In Ashburn, the judge found that Starbucks crossed that line.
The company changed a training requirement without bargaining
The judge also found that Starbucks introduced a new annual recertification requirement for barista trainers in April 2023.
Barista trainers are employees who help prepare newly hired workers for their jobs. The role involves additional training responsibilities and can carry additional compensation.
Under federal labor law, an employer generally must give a certified union notice and an opportunity to bargain before making material unilateral changes to mandatory subjects of bargaining, unless a recognized exception applies.
Starbucks disputed that its recertification requirement represented a material change. It argued that the training requirement was not the kind of significant alteration that triggered a bargaining obligation.
The judge rejected that defense. He concluded that Starbucks violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by implementing the requirement without notifying Workers United and providing an opportunity to bargain.
The recommended order would require Starbucks, upon the union’s request and to the extent not already accomplished, to rescind the unilateral change and compensate employees for qualifying losses attributable to it.
This was a specific finding involving a particular workplace policy. It should not be mistaken for a determination that Starbucks refused every form of bargaining with the Ashbrook unit.
Not every allegation survived scrutiny
The decision was not a blanket endorsement of the union’s allegations.
One allegation concerned the termination of Chelsea Brent, who was accused of entering the store alone and falsifying time records.
The judge concluded that entering the store alone would not, by itself, have justified termination under the company’s past practices. However, he accepted that Starbucks reasonably believed Brent had falsified time entries, conduct that could justify immediate separation under company policy.
He dismissed the allegation that her discharge was unlawfully discriminatory.
The judge also dismissed claims that Starbucks discriminatorily withheld barista-training assignments from Gabrielle Duritsa and Marium Rashid.
Although both were known union supporters, the evidence did not establish that their organizing activity motivated the lack of assignments. The record also described staffing shortages and changes in how newly hired employees received training.
Similarly, the judge dismissed the allegation concerning the suspension of the store’s Partner of the Quarter award.
Although the program affected compensation when conducted, the evidence did not establish a sufficiently consistent pre-certification practice to prove that its interruption constituted an unlawful unilateral change.
These distinctions are consequential. The judge sustained allegations where he found the evidence satisfied the applicable legal standards and dismissed others where the record did not support them. Starbucks’ defenses succeeded on some issues and failed on others.
Three years later, a recommended remedy
The underlying events occurred principally in 2023. The case was tried in April and June 2026, and Judge Rosas issued his decision on September 30.
His recommended order would require Starbucks to stop the unlawful practices, offer reinstatement and financial remedies to Kang, remove the discriminatory disciplinary warnings, and comply with bargaining obligations concerning workplace changes.
The proposed notice to employees would also inform current and certain former Ashbrook employees of their rights and the violations found.
But the legal process has not yet produced a final Board disposition.
As of October 14, 2026, the NLRB’s administrative law judge decision index listed JD-63-26 as Pending Board Decision. The related unfair labor practice docket also remained open.
Under the NLRB’s procedures, an administrative law judge’s findings and recommended order may be reviewed by the Board. If exceptions are not filed, the Board may adopt the findings and order under its rules.
The available public records reviewed for this article did not establish whether either party had filed exceptions or whether a final order had subsequently been issued.
Consequently, the recommended remedies cannot yet be described as final obligations imposed by a completed Board proceeding.
Nor does the record establish that Kang has returned to work, received backpay, or that the disciplinary warnings have been removed. Whether Ashbrook employees have since negotiated a store-specific collective bargaining agreement also remains unverified.
Those questions are not minor administrative details. They concern whether the legal findings ultimately translate into meaningful relief for the employees involved.
What a union victory actually guarantees
The Ashburn case demonstrates the distance that can exist between winning a union election and securing enforceable workplace protections.
The employees obtained a certified bargaining representative in January 2023.
The judge later concluded that Starbucks had unlawfully terminated one supporter, discriminatorily disciplined three others, selectively enforced its dress code and changed a workplace requirement without bargaining.
Those conclusions rested in part on documentary evidence showing unequal treatment of employees who committed comparable violations.
Yet the recommended remedies arrived more than three years after the election, and the Board’s final disposition remains pending.
That delay does not, by itself, establish wrongdoing by the NLRB. Administrative litigation involves investigations, hearings, evidentiary disputes and opportunities for review.
It does, however, raise a practical question about the effectiveness of labor-law enforcement.
A worker fired in 2023 cannot recover the intervening years simply because a judge recommends reinstatement in 2026. Backpay and other remedies may compensate for measurable losses, but they cannot recreate the workplace conditions or organizing campaign that existed when the violations occurred.
The Ashburn workers won their election. A federal administrative law judge subsequently found that several of their organizing rights had been violated.
What remains unresolved is whether the Board will affirm those findings, what remedies will ultimately become enforceable, and whether the affected employees will receive them.
The election result is settled. The final accounting is not.
Editor’s note: This article is based principally on Administrative Law Judge Michael A. Rosas’s September 30, 2026 decision in Starbucks Corporation, JD-63-26, and public NLRB case records. The judge’s findings and recommended remedies are not presented as a final Board order. The article will be updated if the Board issues a decision or additional verified information becomes available concerning compliance, reinstatement, compensation or collective bargaining at the Ashbrook store.
