Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, PROCEDURE—2d Cir.: Four-sentence text decision denying Section 10(j) injunction violated Rule 52(a)(2), injunction ordered, (Jan 5, 2026)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

"A principal purpose" of Rule 52(a) "is to allow appellate review of the district court's decision."

A federal district court in New York erred, in a four-sentence text order, in denying the NLRB regional director’s request for a Section 10(j) injunction that would have prohibited a parking management company from engaging in unfair labor practices and would have ordered its reinstatement of certain discharged employees, the Second Circuit held. The district court’s order failed to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(2), which requires that the district court “state the findings and conclusions that support its action.” The regional director also made the necessary showing for a preliminary injunction under the four-part test of Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, 602 U.S. 339, 345 (2024), the appeals court found (Poor v. Parking Systems Plus, Inc., No. 24-3324-cv (2d Cir. Dec. 19, 2025)).

Hospital valet. Stony Brook Hospital, according to the appeals court, is a public medical center located in Stony Brook, New York. It contracts with vendors to provide valet parking for hospital patients and visitors, and the hospital’s valet parking contract was held by Classic Valet Parking from 2015 to 2023.

Unionized attendants. Classic's employees, called "valet attendants," voted in 2015 to make a UFCW local their exclusive bargaining representative. Beginning in 2015, the union and Classic entered into successive labor contracts, the most recent of which remained in force through Halloween 2025.

New parking contract. In 2023, Stony Brook solicited proposals from vendors to take over the valet contract. The contract was awarded to Parking Systems, a parking management company that employs about 1,000 employees and operates at more than 250 regional locations, including across Long Island.

Successor’s knowledge? When Parking Systems won the bid, the bargaining unit at Stony Brook represented 34 of Classic's attendants. The parties disputed whether Parking Systems leadership knew that Classic's employees were unionized when they submitted their bid, though Parking Systems acknowledges that it did not calculate its bid using union wage rates.

Predecessor’s employees not ultimately hired. In the months between winning the bid and assuming operations, leadership at Parking Systems contemplated whether to retain the Classic employees who were already working at Stony Brook.

Then, in early November, the union's attorney emailed Parking Systems to request that it retain Classic's employees, recognize the union, and assume the labor contract. Parking Systems leaders forwarded the email to their lawyer but never responded to the union.

The next day, a Parking Systems manager calculated the cost of hiring Classic's employees at union wages and expressed concern that its bid was already "close to the bone" in terms of profitability. Nevertheless, Parking Systems actively recruited Classic employees through mid-November 2023. Managers visited Stony Brook, spoke to Classic employees working at the lot, and distributed business cards containing QR codes linking to Parking Systems' job application form.

Over the next month, however, it became clear that Parking Systems did not intend to hire the Classic employees even though the positions remained unfilled.

“Singular offer.” Despite its general refusal to hire Classic employees, Parking Systems was very interested in one particular Classic valet, a "standout employee" who had been working at Stony Brook since 2015. Parking Systems offered her a job but noted that it was a "singular offer" and that it would not be hiring other Classic employees. She turned down the job because, as she later testified, she "didn't feel comfortable that [the owner] just want to hire me and not the other co-workers, because... we all belong to a union, and... we've been working together for a long time."

Anti-union statements? She also later testified at a hearing before the Board’s ALJ that, when she asked why Parking Systems was not interviewing other employees, Parking Systems’ owner responded, "Because [the employees] worked with the Union and... [t]he company didn't work with the Union." In addition, two days after her interview with Parking Systems, she texted the union's business agent, stating that "the new parking system company does not want to hire us because we have a union and they do not work with the union."

Assumption of operations. Parking Systems took over valet parking operations from Classic on December 1, 2023. The regional director argued that Parking Systems simply replaced Classic in providing valet parking services at the same Stony Brook parking lots, pointing to an admission by the owner that it "continued to operate substantially the same parking service operation as existed under Classic Valet." Parking Systems, on the other hand, argued that it "operates very differently" than Classic because it changed the locations of the valet stations, opened a new lane that requires traffic facilitation, and implemented different key handling and revenue collection procedures.

Not unionized. In any event, Parking Systems did not hire any former Classic employees when it began operating at Stony Brook. Its current employees are not unionized. And the former Classic employees told the union’s business agent that they lost faith in the union after losing their jobs. The business agent, according to the court, stated that she believed the former employees would return to Stony Brook if offered reinstatement, though most have since found new jobs.

ULP charges. On December 4, 2023, the union filed an unfair labor practice charge against Parking Systems before the Board. After investigating the charge, the regional director issued a complaint before an administrative law judge (ALJ) on April 23, 2024.

Section 10(j) petition. During the pendency of the proceedings before the ALJ, the regional director sought a preliminary injunction in the district court below pursuant to Section 10(j) of the Act. She requested an injunction ordering Parking Systems to, among other things, reinstate the former Classic employees without prejudice to any rights and privileges previously enjoyed, recognize the union, begin good-faith negotiations, and upon request by the union, rescind any or all unilateral changes that Parking Systems implemented at or since the time it took over operations.

Denied in four sentences. The district court denied her petition and motion for a hearing in a four-sentence text order. The entirety of the order, entered November 14, 2024, read as follows: “Having failed to articulate any cognizable irreparable harm -- the sine qua non of preliminary relief -- plaintiff has failed to meet the demanding standard for the issuance of a preliminary injunction. Notably, plaintiff has already sought the very same relief before an Administrative Law Judge, and seeks the same remedy here as in their filings in that proceeding, which remain sub judice. Additionally, the timing of plaintiff's filings, some eight months after the acts complained of, raises the specter of delay, which strongly weighs against the relief sought. Thus, the motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED.”

The regional director appealed to the Second Circuit.

Rule 52(a)(2). The appeals court initially observed that Rule 52(a) states, "In granting or refusing an interlocutory injunction, the court must... state the findings and conclusions that support its action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(2). "A principal purpose" of Rule 52(a) "is to allow appellate review of the district court's decision." NAACP v. Town of East Haven, 70 F.3d 219, 223 (2d Cir. 1995).

And the district court's four-sentence text order plainly violated Rule 52(a)2, according to the appeals court. “The order summarily states that [the regional director] ‘failed to articulate any cognizable irreparable harm,’ without any explanation or discussion,” the Second Circuit noted. “This is the exact kind of unsupported, conclusory statement that is insufficient to satisfy Rule 52(a).”

Finding further that the district court's failure to comply with Rule 52(a) is non-jurisdictional, the appeals court observed that it was not precluded from proceeding to review the merits of the district court’s decision to deny the injunction.

McKinney. The Second Circuit next noted that, under Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, 602 U.S. 339, 345 (2024) (citing Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008)), the traditional four-part test for preliminary injunctions applies to Section 10(j) petitions. “Under that test, as articulated in Winter, 555 U.S. at 20, the Board must show that it is ‘likely to succeed on the merits, that [it] is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in [its] favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.’”

Likelihood of success. The appeals court first agreed with the regional director that she is likely to succeed on the merits of her claims that Parking Systems violated Sections 8(a)(3) and (5). Concerning her Section 8(a)(3) refusal to hire charge, there was sufficient evidence, including internal emails, to show that Parking Systems “initially intended to hire Classic employees, then changed its tune once it discovered their union affiliation.”

Concerning the regional director’s Section 8(a)(5) failure to bargain charge, she could also likely show, the Second Circuit found, that there was substantial continuity between Classic and Parking Systems such that the latter was a legal successor with an obligation to bargain with the union.

Finally, concerning the regional director’s Section 8(a)(5) unilateral changes charge, the appeals court noted that, in exceptional cases in which it is "perfectly clear" from the outset "that the new employer plans to retain all of the employees in the unit," legal successorship and the duty to bargain “attach at the very outset of succession -- that is, before the effectuation of any hiring decisions.” This was one of those cases. The "perfectly clear" exception, the Second Circuit said, applies automatically to cases in which legal successorship is based not on actual majority-union retention, but rather on the presumption that a majority union workforce would have been retained but for a successor's anti-union discrimination in hiring. Here, the appeals court concluded, “Parking Systems was bound by Classic's CBA from the outset,” and the regional director was likely to succeed in showing that Parking Systems violated Section 8(a)(5) of by unilaterally setting initial terms without first bargaining with the union.

Irreparable harm. Ther regional director also established irreparable harm, according to the Second Circuit. “When deciding whether harm is irreparable in § 10(j) successorship cases like this one,” the appeals court noted, “we ask ‘whether the employees' collective bargaining rights may be undermined by the successor's unfair labor practices and whether any further delay may impair or undermine such bargaining in the future.’” And here, the regional director adequately “alleged that Parking Systems' actions would irreparably harm the ‘national policy protecting workers' right to unionize’ and ‘the rights of [its] employees and former Classic employees.’” Through its allegedly unlawful acts, Parking Systems managed to "weaken severely, if not destroy, the power of the predecessor's employees to assert their collective bargaining rights.” Classic's employees were deprived of their right to bargain through their chosen union, and they became disillusioned with the union as a result, the court noted. “This is the exact kind of ‘damage [to] employee confidence’ that could render ‘the Board's determination of any violations... meaningless in the context of a new majority workforce committed to non-unionization.’”

Balance of equities. The appeals court further found that a balance of the equities favors an injunction. Parking Systems argued that an interim reinstatement order would be inequitable because it would have to fire more than 20 employees currently working at Stony Brook, but the court was “unpersuaded that such an order would cause significant disruption to Parking Systems' operations given that it was initially eager to retain the former Classic employees, and has already re-hired eleven of them during the pendency of this case.”

The employer also argued that its operations will be harmed by having to "implement terms and conditions of employment that are inconsistent with [its] mode of operating." Conceding this possibility, the Second Circuit observed that “insofar as Parking Systems' mode of operating runs afoul of labor law, the equities do not demand its preservation. And in any case, the requested injunction will be ‘temporally limited’ because it only binds Parking Systems to the terms and conditions of Classic's CBA until good faith negotiations are completed, ‘either to agreement or to impasse.’”

Public interest. Finally, the appeals court observed, granting injunctive relief in this case furthers the public policies of the NLRA. “Ordering Parking Systems to reinstate Classic's employees under their bargained-for terms of employment during the pendency of the Board's proceedings advances the policy of settling labor disputes through collective bargaining, discourages successor employers from refusing to recognize and bargain with a pre-existing union, and safeguards the integrity of the collective bargaining process.”

The case is No. 24-3324-cv.

Judge: Chin, D.

Attorneys: Laurie Monahan Duggan, National Labor Relations Board, for Teresa Poor. Jamie Felsen (Milman Labuda Law Group) for Parking Systems Plus, Inc.

Companies: Parking Systems Plus, Inc.

Cases: Labor UnfairLaborPractices RemediesDamages Procedure ConnecticutNews NewYorkNews VermontNews