On October 25, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed a fundamental protection under the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"): employees' right to discuss their wages and other terms of employment.
In National Labor Relations Board v. North Mountain Foothills Apartments, Jasper Press, an employee at North Mountain Foothills Apartments ("NMFA"), spoke with coworkers about his compensation after facing challenging working conditions. Specifically, Press discussed his hourly rate and housing subsidy with three coworkers, including once during a conversation about a backlog of work orders and the difficult working conditions at NMFA. Press was subsequently fired, allegedly due to work performance.
NMFA claimed it terminated Press because he failed to complete his work orders. However, during a meeting with management the day before his discharge, NMFA did not mention Press's work performance and instead expressed frustration about his compensation-related discussions with other workers.
After his termination, Press filed a complaint with the NLRB alleging NMFA engaged in unfair labor practices. The Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") found that NMFA engaged in several unfair labor practices and issued an order requiring NMFA to cease violations, reinstate Press, compensate him for his losses, and post a remedial notice. NMFA filed exceptions to the ALJ's decision with the NLRB. The NLRB affirmed the ALJ's decision and brought an application for enforcement to the Ninth Circuit.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit found substantial evidence supported the NLRB's determination that Press's discussions about his wages were a motivating factor in NMFA's decision to terminate him. The court explained that for employee activity to be protected, "it must be both concerted (i.e., done with or on behalf of other employees) and done for mutual aid or protection (i.e., done with the intention of improving the terms and conditions of employment)." The court emphasized that Press's discussions were protected because he spoke about his compensation "in response to the challenging working conditions they all faced" and the discussions appeared to have "sparked conversation among other workers about their own compensation." The court ultimately granted the NLRB's application for enforcement of its Order.
The court also addressed several constitutional challenges raised by NMFA, including the NLRB's for-cause removal protections, adjudication scheme, and combined investigatory and adjudicatory powers. However, it found no merit in NMFA's argument that the NLRB's combined investigatory and adjudicatory functions violated the Fifth Amendment right to due process. The court noted that the NLRB's structure separates investigatory and adjudicatory functions between the General Counsel and the Board, respectively, and NMFA failed to demonstrate any unconstitutional potential for bias.
This decision reinforces the notion that employees are legally entitled to discuss their wages. Further, it underscores that employers cannot retaliate against employees for engaging in such protected activities, and any adverse employment actions taken in response to these discussions could be deemed unfair labor practices. Employers should be sure to remove any restrictions in handbooks and employment agreements that limit employees' freedom to discuss their wages, benefits, or other terms of employment.
If you have any questions about this decision or your employment policies, please contact the authors or your regular Saul Ewing attorneys.
