The judge applied a new balancing test that was established by the NLRB last year under a Republican majority. The test weighs the rationale for an employer’s rule against its impact on employees’ rights. The employer had argued it had a legitimate interest in ensuring its employees were well-rested and didn’t go to work for competing companies. The judge noted the employer could address its concerns “with a better-tailored rule.”
Why the case is worth watching: The decision demonstrates that even under the standards of a Trump Board, many common employer policies could be vulnerable. It remains to be seen whether that Board overturns this and similar decisions by the administrative law judges.
