Search form

Court Grants Permanent Injunction, Blocking Labor Department’s New Persuader Rule

By Philip B. Rosen, Jonathan J. Spitz and Howard M. Bloom
  • November 16, 2016

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Lubbock Division, has converted its nationwide preliminary injunction, issued on June 27, 2016, against the U.S. Department of Labor’s “persuader” rule into a nationwide permanent injunction. National Federation of Independent Business, et al. v. Perez, et al., No. 5:16-CV-00066-C (N.D. Tex. Nov. 16, 2016). The court found the rule “unlawful.”

This means the new rule, promulgated under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act and scheduled to be applicable to arrangements and agreements entered into on or after July 1, 2016, will continue not to be effective.

On March 24, 2016, the DOL published its final rule relating to “persuader” activity under the LMRDA. Under the DOL’s new interpretation, employers/clients as well as consultants/attorneys would be required to report to the DOL all arrangements in which an “object” (directly or indirectly) of the services provided by the consultant/attorney is to persuade employees about the manner of exercising the employees’ “right to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing” under federal labor law. (The final rule took effect on April 25, 2016, but was applicable only to arrangements and agreements [and payments associated therewith] entered into on or after July 1, 2016.)

In his extensive preliminary injunction ruling, U.S. District Judge Sam R. Cummings found the plaintiffs had shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and a substantial threat of irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief if the rule went into effect.

The court also found the balance of hardships weighed in the plaintiffs’ favor, because the threatened injury to the plaintiffs was substantial, whereas the Department of Labor would not suffer harm from delayed implementation. Further, the court found the issuance of the injunction would not disserve the public interest, because it would ensure the plaintiffs and other employers would continue to have access to necessary legal counsel, protect confidential relationships, and protect constitutional rights. (For a detailed discussion of the preliminary injunction ruling, see our article, Court Halts Labor Department’s New Persuader Rule.)

The new rule likely would have made it more difficult for employers to communicate effectively facts and opinions on labor relations matters to employees — a right provided to employers by the National Labor Relations Act — without incurring a reporting obligation. It also likely would have interfered with an employer’s right to effective representation by legal counsel, particularly in obtaining legal advice and preserving the confidentiality of attorney-client communications. This advice often is necessary when employers speak to their employees to avoid unlawful or objectionable conduct under the NLRA.

The court’s June 27 preliminary injunction order is on interlocutory appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Judge Cummings’ ruling does not affect that appeal.

Even if the court had refused to issue the permanent injunction, or if the court of appeals reverses Judge Cummings’ ruling, it is questionable whether the new rule will survive for very long under a Trump administration Department of Labor.

Please contact Jackson Lewis with any questions about this decision and other workplace issues.

©2016 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

June 13, 2018

Top Five Labor Law Developments for May 2018

June 13, 2018

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that class action waivers in employment arbitration agreements do not violate federal law. Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, No. 16-285; Ernst & Young LLP et al. v. Morris et al., No. 16-300; National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., et al., No. 16-307 (May 21, 2018). The Supreme Court’s... Read More

May 21, 2018

Supreme Court: Class Action Waivers in Employment Arbitration Agreements Do Not Violate Federal Labor Law

May 21, 2018

Class action waivers in employment arbitration agreements are enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), the U.S. Supreme Court has held in a much-anticipated decision in three critical cases. Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, No. 16-285; Ernst & Young LLP et al. v. Morris et al., No. 16-300; National Labor Relations Board v.... Read More

May 21, 2018

Supreme Court Rules Class Action Waivers in Employment Arbitration Agreements Valid

May 21, 2018

Class action waivers in employment arbitration agreements do not violate federal law, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in a much-anticipated decision in three critical cases. Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, No. 16-285; Ernst & Young LLP et al. v. Morris et al., No. 16-300; National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., et al.,... Read More

Related Practices