Care One, LLC and its network of healthcare facilities have filed an appeal with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals challenging a decision by the National Labor Relations Board, according to court documents filed under case number 23-7475-cv.
The appeal involves a consortium of healthcare companies including Care One, LLC, HealthBridge Management, LLC, and Care Realty, LLC, along with multiple operating companies that run healthcare facilities throughout Connecticut. The facilities include Danbury HCC, Long Ridge of Stamford, Newington Health Care Center, Westport Health Care Center, West River Health Care Center, Wethersfield Health Care Center, Golden Hill Health Care Center, Highlands Health Care Center, and River Glen Health Care Center.
The case targets the National Labor Relations Board and its individual members, including Lauren McFerran, Gwynne Wilcox, Marvin Kaplan, and David Prouty, all named in their official capacities as NLRB members. The appeal also names Kenneth R. Chu, who served as an Administrative Law Judge for the National Labor Relations Board in the underlying proceedings.
The appeal stems from an October 4, 2023 order issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The healthcare companies are challenging this district court decision, which apparently upheld or declined to overturn actions taken by the NLRB in the original labor relations matter.
Oral arguments in the case were heard by the Second Circuit on Nov. 12, 2024, before Circuit Judges Reena Raggi, Raymond Pérez, and Marian Kahn. The court issued its decision on Feb. 5, 2026, though the specific outcome is not detailed in the available court documents.
The case appears to involve complex labor relations issues affecting multiple healthcare facilities within the Care One network. The NLRB typically handles disputes involving union organizing, unfair labor practices, collective bargaining, and other workplace rights issues under the National Labor Relations Act.
Care One operates numerous healthcare facilities throughout Connecticut, making it a significant employer in the state's healthcare sector. The company's business model involves multiple subsidiary operating companies that manage individual healthcare centers under the broader Care One umbrella.
The involvement of an Administrative Law Judge suggests the case likely began with formal proceedings before the NLRB, where ALJs conduct hearings and issue initial decisions on unfair labor practice charges and representation cases. These decisions can be appealed to the full NLRB board and subsequently to federal court.
The naming of individual NLRB members as defendants indicates the healthcare companies may be challenging specific board actions or decisions rendered by the current composition of the labor board. The NLRB consists of five members appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, with terms of five years each.
Labor relations in the healthcare industry have been particularly active in recent years, with workers at hospitals, nursing homes, and other medical facilities increasingly organizing and filing complaints with the NLRB. Healthcare workers have raised concerns about staffing levels, working conditions, wages, and workplace safety, particularly during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over federal appeals from Connecticut, New York, and Vermont. The court regularly handles NLRB appeals and has established precedent on various labor law issues affecting employers and workers in the region.
For Care One and its affiliated companies, the outcome of this appeal could have implications for their labor relations practices across their Connecticut facilities. Healthcare employers often face complex compliance requirements under both federal labor law and healthcare regulations.
The case timeline shows a relatively swift progression from the district court order in October 2023 to oral arguments in late 2024 and a decision in early 2026. This timeframe is typical for federal appeals involving administrative agency decisions.
While the specific allegations and NLRB findings in the underlying case are not detailed in the available court documents, the multi-facility nature of the dispute suggests it may involve company-wide policies or practices that affected workers across the Care One network.
The resolution of this case could provide guidance for other healthcare employers facing similar NLRB proceedings and may clarify the scope of federal labor law as applied to multi-facility healthcare operations. Healthcare industry observers and labor law practitioners will likely monitor the case for its potential precedential value in future NLRB enforcement actions.