National Labor Relations Board v. North Mountain Foothills Apartments, LLC

NLRB v. North Mountain Foothills Apartments · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · October 28, 2025 · No. 24-2223

Summary

The Ninth Circuit granted the National Labor Relations Board’s application to enforce its order finding that North Mountain Foothills Apartments, LLC violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by interrogating, restricting, threatening, and discharging an employee for protected concerted activity. The court exercised jurisdiction over the employer’s previously unraised constitutional challenges to the NLRB’s removal protections, adjudication scheme, and combined investigative and adjudicatory functions, but rejected those challenges. It held that the removal-protection claim failed for lack of demonstrated harm, the Seventh Amendment did not require a jury trial for NLRB proceedings or Thryv remedies, and the due process challenge failed. The court concluded that the discharge finding was supported by substantial evidence and that other challenges had been forfeited.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Jed S. Rakoff, District Judge, sitting by designation; Holly A. Thomas, Circuit Judge; Ana de Alba, Circuit Judge
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decision date
October 28, 2025
Docket number
24-2223
Procedural posture
The National Labor Relations Board petitioned for enforcement of its order finding that North Mountain Foothills Apartments, LLC violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act. The respondent challenged the Board's order on constitutional and evidentiary grounds.
Standard of review
Questions of jurisdiction and constitutional law are reviewed de novo. The court must uphold an NLRB decision when substantial evidence supports its factual findings and the agency applied the law correctly.
Precedential value
Published, precedential Ninth Circuit opinion
Parties
North Mountain Foothills Apartments, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board
Disposition
other

Topics

unfair labor practiceslabor lawadministrative lawconstitutional lawappellate procedure

Practice areas

labor lawadministrative lawconstitutional lawappellate procedureemployment law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Ninth Circuit had jurisdiction under Section 10(e) of the NLRA to consider constitutional challenges to the NLRB's structure and functions that North Mountain Foothills Apartments had not raised before the Board.
  2. Whether the statutory for-cause removal protections applicable to the NLRB administrative law judge entitled the employer to retrospective relief despite the absence of demonstrated harm.
  3. Whether NLRB unfair-practice proceedings involving Thryv make-whole remedies implicate the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.
  4. Whether the combination of investigative and adjudicatory functions within the NLRB violated the employer's Fifth Amendment due process rights.
  5. Whether substantial evidence supported the NLRB's findings that the employer violated Section 8(a)(1), particularly by discharging Press for engaging in protected concerted activity.

Holdings

  1. Section 10(e) of the NLRA does not bar the court from considering unexhausted constitutional challenges directed at the agency's own structure or enabling statute when extraordinary circumstances exist, because the agency generally lacks authority to resolve such structural constitutional claims.
  2. Even assuming that the NLRB ALJ's for-cause removal protection violated Article II, the employer was not entitled to retrospective relief because it failed to show that the removal provision inflicted compensable harm or affected the challenged adjudication.
  3. Employers are not entitled to jury trials in NLRB unfair-practice proceedings involving Thryv make-whole remedies because those proceedings are not suits at common law and the remedies are equitable rather than legal.
  4. The NLRB's combination of investigative and adjudicatory functions does not, by itself, violate due process, and the employer failed to show either that a single individual performed both functions or that the agency adjudicators had an unconstitutional potential for bias.
  5. The employer forfeited challenges to the NLRB's findings that it interrogated Press, promulgated overly broad directives, and threatened Press with reprisals; the NLRB was therefore entitled to summary enforcement of those findings.
  6. Substantial evidence supported the NLRB's finding that North Mountain Foothills Apartments violated Section 8(a)(1) by discharging Press for engaging in actual or perceived protected concerted activity concerning his compensation and working conditions.

Key quotations

So long as an agency’s officers are validly appointed (which NMFA does not contest as to this ALJ), retrospective relief based on an unconstitutional removal provision is available only where the provision “inflict[s] compensable harm.” (15)
Here, however, there can be no doubt that Thryv remedies are intended to restore the status quo. (18)
The NLRB’s bifurcated structure reflects the intent of the Congress “to differentiate between the General Counsel’s and the Board’s final authority along a prosecutorial versus adjudicative line.” (20)

Factual background

North Mountain Foothills Apartments employed James Press as a maintenance technician during a period of increased work orders caused by an outdated HVAC system and a Phoenix heatwave. Press discussed his $25 hourly wage, monthly housing subsidy, and working conditions with several coworkers. After management confronted him about coworkers learning his compensation and expressed frustration that his discussions had created a crisis, Press was discharged the next day, purportedly for failing to complete work orders.

Procedural history

After an evidentiary hearing before an administrative law judge, the NLRB found that North Mountain Foothills Apartments violated Section 8(a)(1) by interrogating an employee about wage discussions, promulgating an overly broad directive restricting discussions of compensation and pest-control issues, threatening reprisals, and discharging the employee for protected activity. The Board issued an order on February 21, 2024, requiring reinstatement, make-whole relief, removal of discharge references, and notice posting. On the enforcement proceeding, the Ninth Circuit considered the employer's previously unraised structural constitutional claims and its challenge to the Board's findings, then granted enforcement.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…