NLRB v. Amazon.com Services LLC

Track this case

Case Number:

24-1619

Court:

Appellate - 7th Circuit

Nature of Suit:

agency 

Companies

Government Agencies

Sectors & Industries:

  1. April 15, 2025

    7th Circ. Judge Skeptical Amazon Violated Labor Law

    A Seventh Circuit judge on Tuesday pushed a National Labor Relations Board attorney to address why it was a violation of federal labor law for Amazon to tell employees that it can make exceptions to a policy limiting their off-duty access to a Kentucky facility at any time, "when the legal right exists whether the workers are told or not."

  2. February 26, 2025

    Amazon Fights NLRB's Finding On Off-Duty Access Rule

    National Labor Relations Board prosecutors were too quick to go after Amazon for banning off-duty workers from accessing company facilities three years ago, the company argued, saying prosecutors owed the e-commerce giant a chance to adjust its 2022 off-duty access policy before alleging the policy violated a 2021 settlement.

  3. February 05, 2025

    Amazon Illegally Breached Access Deal, NLRB Tells 7th Circ.

    The National Labor Relations Board on Wednesday urged the Seventh Circuit to uphold a default judgment against Amazon that found the company violated a settlement with the agency by issuing an off-duty access policy, saying the e-commerce giant is raising "nonsensical" arguments.

  4. October 07, 2024

    NLRB Fights Amazon's Deference Challenge In 7th Circ. Spat

    The Seventh Circuit must uphold the National Labor Relations Board's decision finding Amazon had an unlawful off-duty access rule, the board argued, saying the U.S. Supreme Court's overrule of the so-called Chevron deference doctrine doesn't disturb standards for reviewing agency orders.

  5. July 17, 2024

    NLRB Should Get 'No Deference' At 7th Circ., Amazon Says

    The Seventh Circuit "owes no deference" to the National Labor Relations Board's determinations about violations of federal labor law, Amazon told the appeals court, fighting the board's conclusion that the company unlawfully maintained an off-duty access rule.