Document: 461 U.S. 731 103 S.Ct. 2161 76 L.Ed.2d 277 BILL JOHNSON'S RESTAURANTS, INC., Petitionerv.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. No. 81-2257. Argued March 29, 1983. Decided May 31, Syllabus After one Helton, a waitress at petitioner's restaurant, filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) alleging that she had been fired because of her efforts to organize union, Helton and others, including other waitresses, picketed restaurant distributed leaflets. Petitioner three its co-owners then suit for damages injunctive relief against demonstrators in an Arizona state court, defendants harassed customers, blocked access created threat public safety, libeled plaintiffs by false statements On following day, second charge NLRB, alleging, inter alia, petitioner civil retaliation defendants' protected, concerted activities filing NLRB. consolidated hearing on complaints, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that, "on basis record from [his] observation witnesses," evidence failed support allegations complaint state-court action, such action thus lacked "reasonable basis" prosecution was retaliatory, violation §§ 8(a)(1) (4) Act (Act). appeal, NLRB adopted, minor exceptions, ALJ's findings recommendations, ordered withdraw complaint. The Court Appeals enforced NLRB's order. Held: 1. may not halt lawsuit, regardless plaintiff's motive, unless lacks reasonable fact or law. Retaliatory motive lack are both essential prerequisites issuance cease-and-desist order suit. Pp. 740-744. (a) well-founded lawsuit be enjoined as practice, even if it would have commenced but desire retaliate defendant exercising rights protected Act. Act's provisions guaranteeing employees enjoyment their unionize, engage activity, utilize processes without fear coercion employer liberally construed. However, countervailing considerations allowing condemn include First Amendment right courts States' compelling interests maintaining domestic peace protecting citizens' health welfare. Thus, interpretation only element is retaliatory untenable. Pp.740-743. (b) enjoinable prosecute baseless intent retaliating employee exercise Such suits within scope protection, noted above do enter into play when has no basis. 743-744. 2. In determining whether basis, limited considering bare pleadings suit, inquiry must structured manner will preserve jury judge resolve genuine material factual state-law legal disputes pertaining lawsuit. Therefore, called upon determine unlawful prior time court renders final judgment, plaintiff can show issues exist, await results adjudication respect merits If proceedings result judgment adverse plaintiff, consider matter further and, found intent, find appropriate relief. Pp.744-747. 3. This case returned consideration light proper standards. It province, based his own evaluation evidence, libel business-interference counts were merit. He should question raised material. Furthermore, because, enforcing order, ultimately relied "substantial evidence" supported finding violated Act, error cured. 747-748. 660 F.2d 1335 (9th Cir.1981), vacated remanded. Lawrence Allen Katz, Phoenix, Ariz., petitioner. Carolyn F. Corwin, Washington, D.C., respondent. Justice WHITE delivered opinion Court. 1 We decide issue brought federally-protected rights, also 2 * present controversy arises out dispute "Bill Johnson's Big Apple East," four restaurants owned operated Arizona. began August 8, 1978, Myrland most senior waitresses restaurant. Believing termination Board. 3 September 20, after investigation, Board's General Counsel issued same joined co-waitresses few picketers carried signs asking customers boycott management waitresses. Petitioner's manager confronted threatened "get even" them "if it's last thing I do." president telephoned husband picketing impliedly couple hurt" lose new home wife continued participate protest. 21 22. addition, leaflet accused making "[u]nwarranted sexual advances" "filthy restroom women employees." stated suggesting union organized. 4 morning 25, verified court. Plaintiffs alleged engaged mass picketing, ingress egress safety. contained count, outrageous published malicious injure plaintiffs. sought temporary restraining preliminary permanent relief, well compensatory damages, $500,000 punitive equitable App. 3-9. hearing, declined enjoin distribution leaflets otherwise requested 19-23. Expedited depositions permitted. retained counsel plaintiffs' motion injunction November 16, dissolved denied 52. 5 Meanwhile, day filed, committed number practices connection between Among these activities, they under October 23. As relevant here, petitioner, prosecuting attempting (NLRA Act), 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1) (4).1 6 December held four-day two unfair-labor-practice complaints.2 27, 1979, ALJ rendered decision concluding total seven during course dispute. 249 N.L.R.B. 155, 168-169 (1980). With regard presently before us, agreed (4). applied rationale Power Systems, Inc., 239 445, 449-450 (1978), enforcement denied, 601 936 (CA7 1979), which institute purpose penalizing discouraging seeking processes. 7 inferred acted animus "a assert" Similarly, case, this "an attempt penalize having Board, assisting protest her." N.L.R.B., 165. bolstered conclusion noting direct purpose, i.e., threats with" "hurt" defendants. Ibid. 8 reached witnesses, demeanor, extensive briefs parties." Id., 164. view ALJ, "evidence fail[ed] support" complaint's clogged sidewalks, entrances exits count deemed "the establishe[d] truthfulness" everything leaflet.3 9 findings, conclusions law recommended 155. Accordingly, undertake remedial measures. things, required reimburse all expenses 169-170. 10 entirety, (CA9 1981), holding substantial employer's "lawsuit fact, [and] engaging activity." 1342. certiorari, urging could properly action.4 granted writ, --- ----, 253, 74 198 (1982), we now vacate remand proceedings. II 11 allegedly checkered history Board.5 At first, W.T. Carter & Bro., 90 2020, 2023-2024 (1950), where sued obtained barring meetings company property, divided constituted practice. analogized common rejected contention "resort lawful basic right." dissent objected recognize judicial forum, doing so interfere employees' rights. 2029 (Herzog, Chairman, dissenting). Ten years later, Clyde Taylor Co., 127 103, 109 (1960), banning peaceful discharges, overruled adopted earlier dissent. 12 During next eighteen Taylor, decisions appear us entirely consistent.6 Then, supra, 450, concluded: "Since Respondent . objective [the employee] Board." therefore gravamen offense objective, 13 Although Systems purported distinguish progeny each those cases "was tactic calculated restrain Act," id., 449, distinction illusory. itself despite specific preventing guaranteed rather than advancing any legitimate interest own." 121. Since consistently adhered rule who sues guilty Act.7 Under line cases, brief counsel's remarks oral argument confirm,8 does merit independent § 8(a)(4) Rather, asserts motive. III 14 first blush, position seems substance. Sections broad, guarantee able enjoy secured Act—including activity mutual aid restraint, coercion, discrimination, interference employer. construed laws prohibiting wide variety conduct intended restrain, likely effect restraining, activities.9 A doubt used powerful instrument retaliation. observed, suing files engages place notice anyone subjecting himself possibility burdensome Regardless how unmeritorious is, retain incur defend it. 449. noted, chilling employee's willingness multiplied seeks addition F.2d, 1343, n. Where, hourly-wage individuals backing need allow intervene provide remedy greatest. 15 There weighty considerations, however, militate prosecution. California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 508, 510, 92 609, 611, 30 642 (1972), recognized aspect petition Government redress grievances. antitrust anticompetitive so, "mere sham" harassment purposes. 511, S.Ct., 612. sensitive values construing NLRA context. recognized, "going body wrongs stands apart forms directed wrongdoer. too important solely ground what Peddie Buildings, 203 265, 272 (1973), grounds, Visceglia, 498 43 (CA3 1974). See (1960). 16 Moreover, recognition maintenance peace, preempting States providing touching "deeply rooted local feeling responsibility." San Diego Building Trades Council Garmon, 359 236, 244, 79 773, 779, 775 (1959). repeatedly seek protection tortious See, e.g., Sears, Roebuck Carpenters, 436 180, 98 1745, 56 209 (1978); Farmer 430 290, 97 1056, 51 338 (1977); Linn Plant Guard Workers, 383 53, 86 657, 582 (1966); Construction Workers Laburnum Corp., 347 656 833, L.Ed. 1025 (1954). 17 U.S., 65, 664, recover tort arising prove malice actual injury. 306, 1066. allowed well-grounded necessarily follows subject totally deprived injury, since "Board award impose penalty, give relief" plaintiff. Linn, 63, 663. extent declare meritorious runs headlong Farmer, infer congressional ignore State "in well-being citizens." 302-303, 1064-65. 196, 1757; 61, 662. 18 Of course, special competence applying general complexities industrial life, interpretations entitled deference, where, consistent. J. Weingarten, 420 251, 264-267, 95 959, 967-68, 171 (1975); Seven-Up 344 344, 347-349, 73 287, 289-90, 377 (1953). And literal language considered, inclined uphold construction statute irrational. Considering identified conclude B 19 true insubstantial claims—suits lack, use term coined basis." protection: 20 amendment involved private litigation compensation interests, psychological benefits vindication, airing disputed facts—are advanced intentional falsehoods knowingly frivolous claims. sham definition involve bona fide grievance, come petition.10 Just immunized freedom speech, see Herbert Lando, 441 153, 171, 99 1635, 1646, 60 115 (1979); Gertz Robert Welch, 418 323, 340, 94 2997, 3007, 41 789 (1974), petition. 22 Since, definition, suffered legally-protected State's citizens," 303, 1065, implicated. negligible interest, any, claims adjudicated courts, particularly face strong federal vindicating national laws. 23 Considerations analogous led context adopt exception Transport, supra. follow similar NLRA. litigate one, utmost care ordering cessation believe Congress remedy. hold IV 24 Having improperly motivated lacking constitutes inquire steps take evaluating requisite insists pre-judgment go beyond corners Its long jurisdiction grant, proceed. hand, apparently perceives limitations determination example, conducted virtual trial Based de facto trial, concluded, part "his demeanor," 25 cannot agree either party. pleadings, there turns credibility witnesses inferences drawn undisputed facts, cannot, our view, enjoined. When presents issues, petitioning resolved jury, welfare citizens, lead construe permitting usurp traditional fact-finding function judge.11 Hence, shows raises proceed 8(a)(1)-§ stay until concluded.12 26 nature. mixed refrain deciding genuinely likewise deprive litigant questions decided judiciary.13 While hand plainly foreclosed frivolous, tribunals realistic chance theory might adopted. 27 instances proceed, proves he employees, prevail goes withdrawn shown merit, forum citizens vindicated, adjudicate case. proved unmeritorious, warranted taking account found, whom wrongfully attorneys' fees expenses. effectuate policies 160(c).14 V 28 argues review below affirmed once circumstances. does, challenge circumstances did reach accordance opinion. above, reservations about weighing judgments. true, business groundless, allegations. 164-165. 736. province make determinations. What determined false. facts regarding counts; rather, expressing enjoinable, shall return VI To summarize, cease-anddesist short, then, although foregoing, vacated, remanded instructions consistent opinion.15 31 So ordered. BRENNAN, concurring. 32 holds today basis," ante, 743, further, grounds "genuine fact," 2171-2173. For me, delphic pronouncements. They standards content structures state—and administrative judicial—authority over disputes, read artificial way ignores provenance. 33 remember focus review. Court, principal arbiter policy. 34 "Here, life. Republic Aviation Corp. 324 793, 798 [65 982, 985, 89 1372]; Phelps Dodge [313 177,] 194 [61 845, 852, 85 1271], '[appraising] carefully sides labor-management diverse particular cases' understanding 'the actualities relations.' United Steelworkers, [357 357,] 362-363. 'The ultimate problem balancing conflicting interests. striking balance policy often difficult delicate responsibility, primarily review.' Truck Drivers Union, 353 87, 96 [77 643, 647, 676]." Erie Resistor 373 221, 83 1139, 1149, 308 (1963).1 35 reviewing provided purposes task 36 "[is] interpret [we think] best narrower [NLRB]'s 'sufficiently reasonable' accepted Train Resources Defense Council, 421 60, 75 [95 1470, 1480, 731] Zenith Radio States, 437 443, 450 [98 2441, 2445, 57 337] (1978). satisfy standard necessary agency's reading initially arisen proceeding." FEC Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, 454 39, 102 38, 46, 70 (1981). 37 Court's responsibility comes broad mandate develop constitutional resonances. suggest surfaces directly But observed left much unsaid relationships institutional individual governments, intending full measure power regulate relationships. Garner Teamsters Local 776, 346 485, 488, 161, 164, 228 far depriving workers employers law, guidance norms, absence more supply surest indication intended. 38 spirit dispute" understood. phrases encapsulate complex limits authority set vindicate enjoining lawsuit.2 More meaning derived close attention based. 39 grievances courts. (1972). preempt some causes exclusive certain types see, 1338(a); 40 270b(b), complete preemption lightly implied. completely preempted sue defamation occurs (1966). implicating intend authorize unpreempted subjective frustrate operation except weakest—where makes clear, 741, 749, ability remedies Cf. New York Times 403 713, 733, 91 2140, 2151, 822 (1971) (WHITE, J., concurring) ("failure justify restraints entitlement conviction criminal publication"). necessity remedies, high degree deference.3 Somewhat different concerns affect procedures determination. Constitution protects person's file decision. rule, exception. That accomplished congressionally authorized legislation. Fidelity Federal Savings Loan Assn. la Cuesta, 3014, 3022, 664 (1982). Even areas preempted, overlay—as actions like requirement proved. Nor jury. "interest jury," 745, derivative cause procedures. Yet "State's right" whenever agent determines relations, industries affecting commerce, requires rules. 42 "[W]hen down meant simply alter then-prevailing substantive restructure fundamentally effectuating policy, deliberately placing developing comprehensive system hands expert federalized system." Coach Employees Lockridge, 274, 289, 1909, 1919, 473 (1971). 242-243, 778-79, (1959); 490-491, 165-66. 44 say disregard altogether state-created determinations rulings preempted. clear not. accommodation interests; much. inference draw structure state-federal relations area if, whatever committed, controlling bars favor applicable understand phrase disputes," way. crucial 746, Jackson Virginia, 443 307, 2781, 61 560 (1979), provides analogy allocation factfinding charged regarded factfinder verdict entertaining lawsuits unreasonable juries, prevent swift, effective vindication 45 uses accomplish mission limited, constraints attenuated. Unless agency statutory mandate, violates procedures, fails affected party due process role specifying methods reaching Vermont Yankee Nuclear Natural 435 519, 548-549, 1197, 1213-14, 55 460 acknowledges notes "we leave reasonable-basis discretion." Ante, 11. Specifically, every nor wise 46 retains deal ways resort "powerful retaliation," 740. constitutionally privileged method harassing punishing finds differently. measures less impact investigate deems participants coercive lawsuits. These state: "It employer— (1) with, coerce [§ Act]; discharge discriminate given testimony subchapter." Section guarantees self-organization, form, join, assist organizations, collective bargaining protection." 157. 15, while submission, granting summary leaving trial. Before ruling, counterclaim abuse process, prosecution, wrongful injunction, libel, slander. parties cross-moved claim counterclaim. dismissed Brief D1. developments. Regional Director petitioned District pursuant 10(j) 160(j), pending January 22, request injunction. C1-C7. made aware court's denial count. apparent virtue statement, 163, still 2, brief, 33-36, erred presented certiorari decline Sup.Ct. Rule 34.1(a). kept mind here bar motivation. dealing claimed federal-law preemption, illegal concedes latter suits. 12-13, 20; Reply 8. successfully argued otherwise, upheld orders unions fines lawfully imposed Granite Joint Textile 187 636, 637 (1970), 446 369 (CA1 1971), rev'd, 409 213, 93 385, 422 (1972); Booster Lodge 405, Machinists Aerospace 185 380, part, 148 U.S.App.D.C. 119, 459 1143 aff'd, 412 84, 1961, 764 request, "where Board's] pre-empts field." Nash-Finch 138, 144, 373, 377, 328 rejection assertion precluded 2283, which, prohibits Nash-Finch, 2283 inapplicable practices, avoid unseemly conflict litigants persons, hamstring agencies protect rights." 146, 378. Compare, S.E. Nichols Marcy 229 265 (1973); Aircraft (Pratt Whitney Division), 192 382 (1971), modified, 534 (CA2 1975), cert. 429 825, 79, 50 87 (1976); Stanford Employees, 680, 232 326 International Organization Masters, Mates Pilots, 224 1626 (1976), enforced, 188 575 896 Television Wisconsin, 722 (1976). Sheet Metal Workers' Union 355, 254 778-780 (1981); Credit Bureau America, 242 921, 925-926 643 1017 (CA4), 994 George A. Angle, 744 683 1296 (CA10 1982). 13, 18-21. argument, questioning purpose. Tr. Oral Arg. 29-35, 39-41, 46-47. Scrivener, 405 117, 121-125, 798, 801-03, Gissel Packing 395 575, 617-619, 1918, 1941-43, 547 (1969); Exchange Parts 375 408-410, 84 457, 459-60, (1964); 797-798, 65 985-86, 1372 (1945); 313 177, 182-187, 846-49, 1271 (1941). Balmer, Sham Litigation Antitrust Laws, Buffalo L.Rev. Accord, Clipper Exxpress Rocky Mountain Tariff Bureau, 674 1252, 1265-1266 1982); Fischel, Liability Attempts Influence Action: Basis Limits Noerr-Pennington Doctrine, U.Chi.L.Rev. 80, 101 (1977). issue" test adjuding motions judgment. Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 56. Substantively, very jury" verdict. Brady Southern Railroad, 320 476, 479-480, 64 232, 234-35, 88 (1943) (directed "that verdict"). context, treat identically, slight differences. generally C. Wright, Miller M. Kane, Practice Procedure 2532, 2713.1 (1983); Moore's &Par; 50.03[4], 56.04[2] primary difference procedural; usually documentary admitted. determinations, jurisprudence, bound either. historical unsupportable patently erroneous submissions rejected. discretion, reason why want hear necessary, early stage involves prefer rely alone, done motions. hearing. Let assume, distribute accusing Doe advance Roe date. Claiming maliciously false, testifies accusation true. testify forward least acceptable explanation cf. 56(f) (summary opponent needs discover facts), Doe's situation, decide, groundless ignore, deterring contrast, suppose elsewhere date incident. truth falsity testimony. circumstances, perhaps disbelieve story thereby effectively turned facts. claim, governed superimposes requirement. 64-65, availability injured action. Dual equally ensure served. remand, careful issued, waived point failing bring ruling nn. 3, ordinary res judicata sense triable deference. event, disregarded cogent so. weight ibid. disagree, felt never as, enforce contract." C5. appears remains finally reinstate unlawfully adheres previous said Elections Commission 37, 45, (1981), "precisely type deference presumptively afforded." "vested 'primary administering Act,' " 'extensive rulemaking adjudicative powers.' 'formulate administration Act.' 266-267, 968, (1975). Frankfurter, writing astutely interpreting complicated perceptive conveyed delusive phrase, 'ascertaining legislature.' 239-240, 776-77, Reasonable people differ wisdom nonfrivolous withdrawn, prevail, instance.

Category: 9