Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

NLRB Given a ‘Mulligan’ in Offensive Speech Case

By Christian White & Todd Dawson on October 1, 2021
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

The Trump National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB or Board) new standard for cases where an employee is disciplined for using offensive speech in the course of engaging in protected labor activity may have a very short lifespan. The standard was originally announced in July 2020 in a case involving General Motors and is therefore often referred to in shorthand as the “General Motors standard.” While not a rubber stamp in favor of discipline, the standard is generally considered to provide clearer guidance to employers than the prior patchwork of rules that was dependent on the context in which the employee used offensive speech. New NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo therefore has made no secret of her intention to seek a reversal of the General Motors standard at the earliest opportunity.

That opportunity may have arrived. Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted the Board’s request for an opportunity to reconsider a case currently on appeal that involved an employee who was terminated for calling the employer’s owner a “stupid jackoff.” The NLRB’s original decision in the case applied the prior standard for offensive speech cases that predated the General Motors decision. The Board based its request ostensibly on the notion that it intends to reconsider its holding in light of General Motors. But given the new Democratic majority on the NLRB, the case may be a vehicle for the Board to overturn General Motors and hold that its application of the pre-General Motors standard was appropriate.

Bottom Line: The NLRB appears poised to discard the General Motors standard and return to the prior, context-dependent approach to cases in which employees use offensive speech in the course of engaging in protected activity. Employers therefore should exercise caution in such cases to ensure that discipline is consistent with legal restrictions.

Photo of Christian White Christian White
Read more about Christian WhiteEmailChristian's Linkedin Profile
Photo of Todd Dawson Todd Dawson
Read more about Todd DawsonEmailTodd's Linkedin Profile
  • Posted in:
    Employment & Labor
  • Blog:
    The Bargaining Table
  • Organization:
    Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo