By: Claire Sweetman
Outside Law Firm Finds Pueblo County’s Municipal Court Workplace Environment “Challenging”
According to the results of a third-party investigation by an external law firm, the workplace environment in the Pueblo County Municipal Court is “challenging” and “deteriorating.”[1] The investigation, conducted by the law firm Hoffman, Parker, Wilson & Carberry, found a lack of supervision within the municipal court to be the culprit of the workplace’s deterioration.[2] The investigation, which was commissioned by the city of Pueblo in July, found the department to be “in need of intervention.”[3]
This news follows a Denver Post investigation that took place last month, which found that judges in Pueblo’s Municipal Court likely used “unconstitutional practices to inflate municipal jail sentences” for low-level, non-violent crimes.[4] The Post investigation also found that former presiding judge Carla Sikes, routinely allowed the use of contempt of court to punish people for failing to appear for their hearings.[5] This practice, according to the Post, had no precedent in “Colorado’s major cities.”[6] Judge Sikes was replaced by Pueblo’s then-mayor, Nelson Dunford, in May 2024.
Witnesses in the investigation reported that the municipal court had a “toxic workplace culture” that was rife with bullying, belittling, and condescension. Employees also reported that management engaged in ageism, including inappropriately commenting on the way workers dressed and how frequently they used the restroom.[7]
The law firm made several recommendations to improve the culture of the municipal court, including a clarified organizational chart, better training, mediation and team building.[8]
SCOTUS Ruling in Starbucks Case Resolves Circuit Court Split
On June 13, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) handed down a ruling in Starbucks v. McKinney, resolving a circuit split regarding the authority of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in requesting preliminary injunctions.[9] The Court ruled that when considering a request from the NLRB for a preliminary injunction under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act,[10] district courts must apply the traditional four factors articulated in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.[11] Historically, the NLRB has had a 90% success rate in securing Section 10(j) injunctions annually.[12] The Court’s decision in Starbucks is seen as significantly weakening the NLRB’s authority.
The case involved seven Starbucks workers who were fired after attempting to organize at a store in Memphis, Tennessee.[13] In response, an NLRB regional director issued an unfair labor practice complaint against Starbucks. While the agency proceedings progressed, the NLRB regional director filed a petition for temporary relief for the workers, including reinstatement to their jobs.[14] The district court granted the petition in part, applying a more lenient two-part standard regarding the Section 10(j) injunction. The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s ruling, including its use of the two-part standard. On appeal, the Court found that the four-factor test should have been applied. SCOTUS vacated the injunction against Starbucks and indicated that the lower courts had applied the wrong standard and erred in preventing Starbucks from terminating the employment of the seven employees.[15]
This decision makes it less likely that the NLRB will be granted injunctions, and may give CEOs more leeway to retain policies such as prohibiting access to company facilities by unauthorized people.[16] The decision may also make organizing more challenging for union members. Furthermore, the ruling will limit the NLRB’s authority to temporarily halt alleged unfair labor
[1] https://www.denverpost.com/2024/08/01/pueblo-municipal-court-workplace-investigation/
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.; https://www.denverpost.com/2024/07/21/pueblo-municipal-contempt-of-court-charges-jail-time/
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/employment-law-compliance/starbucks–supreme-court-victory-is-win-for-ceos-over-unions; https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/starbucks-corp-v-mckinney/.
[10] https://casetext.com/statute/united-states-code/title-29-labor/chapter-7-labor-management-relations/subchapter-ii-national-labor-relations/section-160-prevention-of-unfair-labor-practices
[11] https://casetext.com/case/winter-v-natural-res-def-council-inc-3
[12] https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/employment-law-compliance/starbucks–supreme-court-victory-is-win-for-ceos-over-unions
[13] Id.
[14] Id.
[15] Id.
[16] Id.