Labnet, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Labor

Case Updates

Click here to view the dismissal order.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota stayed the litigation due to “significant reason to believe that the new administration will withdraw the Persuader Rule—or at least decline to defend the validity of the Persuader Rule in its current form.”

The Chamber filed another amicus brief that argued similar grounds in support of plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota denied a motion for a preliminary injunction against the DOL’s Persuader Rule in this challenge against the Rule. Although the court found that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate irreparable injury and the other requirements to obtain preliminary injunctive relief, it also concluded there is a “strong likelihood of success” on the plaintiffs’ claim that the Department of Labor’s Rule violates the plain meaning of the Labor Management Relations Disclosure Act of 1959.

Note that in a separate challenge to the same DOL Rule, NFIB et al. v. Perez, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted a motion for preliminary injunction barring the Department of Labor from expanding the scope of law firms and companies that have to file reports with the DOL regarding their activities to persuade employees not to form or join unions.

The U.S. Chamber filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. District Court of Minnesota to grant the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction in a case addressing the Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) new interpretation of “persuader” activity. The brief explained how the DOL’s new persuader rule is a sharp departure from well-established and longstanding interpretation, will impose substantial compliance costs, and raises serious constitutional questions regarding employers’ statutory and constitutional rights to seek advice on how to communicate with their employees. Of greatest concern, the brief argued, the DOL’s new interpretation of the advice exemption in the LMRDA threatens to expose thousands of lawyers, law firms, and companies to potential criminal liability for failure to abide by an exceedingly vague interpretation of the LMRDA. This case is one of three cases challenging DOL’s persuader rule in which the Chamber has filed an amicus brief.

Subsequently, in September 2016, the Chamber filed another amicus brief that argued similar grounds in support of plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.

Adam G. Unikowsky of Jenner & Block served as counsel for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on behalf of the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, along with Aaron D. Van Oort, Nicholas J. Nelson, and Stuart R. Buttrick of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.