The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is reviewing a National Labor Relations Board decision in a closely watched labor dispute involving Harvard Maintenance, Incorporated and former employee Carina Cruz. The case, filed as *Harvard Maintenance, Incorporated v. National Labor Relations Board* (5th Cir. 2026), presents significant questions about worker protections and employer retaliation in unionized workplaces.
According to court documents filed Feb. 2, the dispute began when Cruz, an employee of Harvard Maintenance, filed a series of complaints alleging violations of the collective bargaining agreement. During the complaint process, Cruz faced threats from her supervisors, which ultimately escalated to her termination from the company.
Following her discharge, Cruz filed a complaint with the NLRB, triggering an administrative investigation. An administrative law judge conducted a hearing and determined that Harvard Maintenance had violated federal labor law through its treatment of Cruz. The ALJ found that the company unlawfully threatened, suspended, and ultimately fired Cruz in retaliation for her protected activities under the National Labor Relations Act.
The administrative law judge's decision required Harvard Maintenance to provide comprehensive remedies to Cruz. The company must pay backpay for lost wages, reimburse Cruz for all "search-for-work-related expenses" incurred while seeking new employment, and compensate her for "any direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms incurred as the result of the unlawful discharge." These remedies reflect the NLRB's standard approach to making workers whole after unlawful terminations.
The NLRB adopted the ALJ's order in full, prompting Harvard Maintenance to seek judicial review. The company filed a petition for review with the Fifth Circuit, challenging multiple aspects of the administrative decision. Harvard Maintenance contests three key findings: the determination that supervisors made coercive statements, the conclusion that Cruz's discharge was unlawful, and the scope of remedies ordered, particularly the "direct and foreseeable pecuniary harms" provision.
The case now presents both a petition for review by Harvard Maintenance and a cross-application for enforcement by the NLRB. This procedural posture is common in NLRB cases, where employers challenge adverse decisions while the Board seeks judicial enforcement of its orders. The Fifth Circuit will review the administrative record to determine whether the Board's findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether its legal conclusions are correct.
The dispute highlights ongoing tensions in labor relations regarding the scope of protected activities and appropriate remedies for violations. Cruz's case involves the fundamental right of employees to file complaints about working conditions and collective bargaining agreement violations without facing retaliation. The National Labor Relations Act protects employees who engage in "concerted activities" related to working conditions, including filing grievances and complaints.
Harvard Maintenance's challenge to the coercive statements finding suggests the company disputes that supervisors' conduct crossed the line into unlawful threats. Employers have broad rights to express views about labor relations, but they cannot threaten employees with adverse consequences for engaging in protected activities. The distinction between permissible employer speech and unlawful coercion often becomes a key issue in NLRB proceedings.
The company's challenge to the discharge finding indicates it disputes the connection between Cruz's protected activities and her termination. Employers can terminate employees for legitimate business reasons, but they cannot use adverse employment actions to retaliate against workers for exercising their rights under federal labor law. The NLRB must prove that anti-union animus was a motivating factor in the discharge decision.
The remedial challenge focuses on the scope of compensation beyond traditional backpay. While the NLRB routinely orders backpay and search-for-work expense reimbursement, the "direct and foreseeable pecuniary harms" language potentially expands the financial consequences for employers found to have violated the law.
The Fifth Circuit's decision will have implications for labor relations throughout its jurisdiction, which covers Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. The court's interpretation of the NLRB's authority to order comprehensive remedies could influence how similar cases are resolved in the future.
Both parties in the case are represented by experienced labor counsel familiar with NLRB proceedings and federal court review. The case is assigned to a three-judge panel consisting of Circuit Judges Jerry E. Smith, Dennis, and Richman, with Judge Smith writing for the court.
The timing of the Fifth Circuit review comes amid broader national debates about worker rights and the appropriate balance between employer prerogatives and employee protections. The court's decision will provide guidance on the standards for proving unlawful retaliation and the scope of available remedies.
The case numbers 02-CA-254451 and 02-CA-258382 indicate the NLRB processed multiple charges in connection with Cruz's complaints, suggesting a pattern of alleged violations rather than isolated incidents. This procedural history may strengthen the Board's position that Harvard Maintenance engaged in systematic retaliation.
As the Fifth Circuit considers the competing arguments, the case serves as a reminder of the ongoing importance of federal labor law protections and the role of administrative agencies in enforcing worker rights. The court's decision will determine whether the NLRB's findings and remedies stand or whether Harvard Maintenance successfully challenges the scope of its liability.