Go to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.comGo to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.com
VitalLaw®
  • Find answers to your questions
  • Log in to access your subscriptions
In depth. On point.
In depth. On point.
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
In depth. On point.
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations
    • REMEDIES, DAMAGES—D.D.C.: CFPB gets another brief reprieve from Trump administration’s dismantlement plans
    • DISCRIMINATION—PAY—S.D. Tex.: OFCCP’s findings of sex discrimination bolsters female project manager’s Equal Pay Act claim
    • DISCRIMINATION—PREGNANCY—11th Cir.: Member of district attorney’s ‘personal staff’ foreclosed from asserting sex discrimination claim
    • EXPERT INSIGHTS—California regulators adopt new discrimination rules for automated-decision systems: 3 steps for employers using AI in the workplace
    • EXPERT INSIGHTS—NLRB rescinds 29 General Counsel memos, marking a shift in labor policy
    • LABOR—UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES—2d Cir.: Severance of remedial issue does not render NLRB order non-final
    • LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—AFGE urges SCOTUS to deny OPM’s motion for a stay of injunction
    • LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—Dueling lawsuits filed by employee union and Trump administration
    • PRIVACY—S.D.N.Y.: Federal employees advance in part their claims against DOGE based on accessing their personal information
    • PROCEDURE—N.D. Tex.: Pet hotel employee, allegedly denied suitable lactation room, fails to advance claims
    • REPORTS—DOGE caused 60 percent increase in job cuts in March, with 275K jobs lost
    • RETALIATION—2d. Cir.: Lebanese dentist partially revives bias claim against NYU
    • WAGE-HOUR—CLASS ACTIONS—E.D. Va.: Utilization reviewers may proceed as collective seeking overtime pay
    • WORTH NOTING—Cases of note dealing with sexual harassment
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations

    Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LABOR—UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES—2d Cir.: Severance of remedial issue does not render NLRB order non-final, (Apr 4, 2025)

    Law Firms Mentioned:Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete
    Organizations Mentioned:Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP | Nexstar Media Inc.

    By Ronald Miller, J.D.

    The Board’s determination that the employer improperly failed to recognize or bargain with the union marked the “consummation” of its decision-making process.

    Nexstar Media was not entitled to dismissal of an NLRB application for ...

    By Ronald Miller, J.D.

    The Board’s determination that the employer improperly failed to recognize or bargain with the union marked the “consummation” of its decision-making process.

    Nexstar Media was not entitled to dismissal of an NLRB application for the enforcement of a decision ordering the employer to recognize and bargain with a union, ruled the Second Circuit. The employer argued that the order was not final because the Board had reserved the issue of whether Nextar should also compensate its employees for its delay in bargaining, and it moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Though the Second Circuit has not yet decided in a precedential opinion whether the NLRB’s severance of a discrete remedial issue impairs the court’s jurisdiction to review an application to enforce an otherwise final order, it agreed with four sister circuits that have held that the agency’s severance of a discrete remedial issue does not necessarily render an NLRB order non-final (NLRB v. Nexstar Media, Inc., No. 24-2818 (2d Cir. Apr. 3, 2025)).

    The Board sought enforcement of its order of August 2024 directing the employer, Nexstar Media, to recognize and bargain with the union. That order reserved the issue of whether Nexstar should also compensate its employees for its delay in bargaining with the union. Because the Board reserved the remedial-relief issue for future consideration, Nexstar argued that the order was not final and moved to dismiss this enforcement proceeding for lack of jurisdiction.

    Question of first impression. The Second Circuit observed that it has not yet decided in a precedential opinion whether the NLRB’s severance of a discrete remedial issue impairs the court’s jurisdiction to review an application to enforce an otherwise final order. Four sister Circuits, including the Eleventh, Third, Ninth, and D.C. Circuit, have held that the NLRB’s severance of a discrete remedial issue does not necessarily render an NLRB order non-final. The Second Circuit reached the same conclusion.

    “Final” order. To be considered “final,” an agency order must satisfy two criteria: “First, the action must mark the consummation of the agency’s decision-making process—it must not be of a merely tentative or interlocutory nature.” An agency process reaches “consummation” when the agency “has arrived at a definitive position on the issue.”

    “[S]econd, the action must be one by which rights or obligations have been determined, or from which legal consequences will flow.” For this prong, “the core question is whether the result of the agency’s decision-making process is one that will directly affect the parties.”

    Obligation to bargain. The appeals court concluded that the order at issue here is final. First, the NLRB’s determination that Nexstar improperly failed to recognize or bargain with the union and must now do so marked the “consummation” of its decision-making process concerning Nexstar’s obligation to bargain. There was no indication that the Board will have the opportunity to change its position on this refusal-to-bargain issue in any severed proceeding regarding the remedial-relief issue. The Board’s position was thus definitive on the issues resolved by the order that the Board petitioned the Second Circuit to enforce.

    Second, the Board’s order was one “‘from which legal consequences’—the requirement to bargain with the Union—‘will flow’ if enforced.” The Board’s order determined that Nexstar must perform an action that it has thus far avoided—namely, bargain with the union. Under these circumstances, the Board’s order was final, and the appeals court had jurisdiction over the Board’s petition to enforce it.

    Accordingly, the employer’s motion to dismiss the Board’s application for enforcement of its order was denied.

    The case is No. 24-2818.

    Judge: Per curiam.

    Attorneys: Ruth E. Burdick for NLRB. Dean Kpere-Daibo (Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete) for Nexstar Media Inc.

    Companies: Nexstar Media Inc.

    Cases: Labor UnfairLaborPractices Bargaining Procedure RemediesDamages AgencyNews ConnecticutNews NewYorkNews VermontNews

    © 2026 CCH Incorporated and its affiliates and licensors. All rights reserved.

    • Manage Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Use