On September 2, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision that could make it easier for employers to defend workplace dress code and uniform policies against unfair labor practice challenges. In Siren Retail Corporation, d/b/a Starbucks Reserve Roastery v. NLRB, the court rejected the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB or Board) current framework for evaluating employer policies that restrict employees’ ability to display union-related clothing, buttons, or insignia at work.

Why This Matters

The NLRB’s 2022 Tesla decision created a legal presumption that employer uniform and dress code policies that restrict employees’ ability to display union insignia or messages are unlawful. To rebut that presumption, employers had to show not only “special circumstances” justifying the restriction, but also that the restriction was narrowly tailored to address those circumstances. The decision calls that framework into question within the Second Circuit and may provide employers with additional arguments for defending workplace appearance policies.

What Happened at Starbucks?

At issue in this case was the enforcement of Starbucks’ uniform policy at one of its flagship “Reserve Roastery” locations in New York City. During a campaign to secure a first collective bargaining agreement, a group of employees reported to work in t-shirts bearing their union’s name and logo. Because the t-shirts did not comply with Starbucks’ dress code, the employees were asked to change into their uniforms, which they did. The union subsequently filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging that three rules in Starbucks’ dress code policy interfered with employees’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act:

  • a rule limiting employees to one non-Starbucks approved pin;
  • a rule prohibiting pins advocating political, religious, or personal issues; and
  • a rule restricting shirts containing logos, designs, or writing that were not approved by Starbucks.

The NLRB found all three rules unlawful.

On appeal, the court overturned the Board’s finding regarding the one-pin policy, holding that a prior Second Circuit decision had already upheld a materially similar restriction.  

The court also rejected the Board’s use of the Tesla framework when evaluating the other policies. According to the court, the Supreme Court’s decision in Republic Aviation did not make every restriction on display of union insignia or messages unlawful, but rather requires a balancing of employees’ rights against an employer’s legitimate business interests. The court explained that Tesla improperly tipped that balance by requiring employers to satisfy an overly demanding standard whenever a dress code or uniform policy limited the display of union insignia. In its view, Tesla gave insufficient weight to employer interests such as brand image, uniformity, and workplace operations and failed to distinguish between minor and more substantial restrictions on employee expression.

The court did not expressly rule that Starbucks’ policies are lawful. Rather, it sent the case back to the NLRB to reconsider the matter under the balancing framework outlined in its opinion. It explained that balancing should consider the extent to which the policies intrude on employee rights, including whether any restrictions are complete or only partial, whether the restrictions are facially neutral, nondiscriminatory, and applied consistently, and the overall context surrounding the reason for the restriction. The court’s analysis was also notable for another reason: its discussion of the degree of deference owed to Board legal interpretations following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Loper Bright.

An Important Post-Loper Bright Development

Importantly, a substantial portion of the opinion focused on a question that is increasingly appearing in labor cases: what level of deference, if any, courts must afford the Board’s legal conclusions after Loper Bright. That case redefined how courts are to evaluate agency decisions and eliminated the longstanding deference afforded to agency decisions under the Court’s previous Chevron standard.

The Second Circuit drew a sharp distinction between factual findings and legal determinations, explaining that while it will continue to defer to the NLRB’s factual findings when supported by substantial evidence, courts must independently evaluate the Board’s legal interpretations. The court noted that although the NLRB’s view of the law may be persuasive, it is no longer entitled to Chevron-type deference. For employers, that may create new opportunities to challenge Board-created legal standards in federal court. It also signals that courts may be more willing to revisit longstanding NLRB doctrines that rest on debatable interpretations of Supreme Court precedent.   

Takeaways for Employers

The decision is another in a growing line of cases in which federal courts have rejected or limited recent NLRB doctrinal changes. It also reinforces an emerging trend in which federal courts are giving more scrutiny to the NLRB’s legal reasoning post-Loper Bright. (See our prior post here.)

For employers, the ruling provides additional support for maintaining facially neutral dress-code and uniform policies designed to promote legitimate business interests, particularly where those policies impose only limited restrictions on employee expression. At the same time, the decision does not eliminate the need for caution. Employers should continue to assess whether workplace appearance policies could affect protected concerted activity and should ensure such policies are applied consistently.