Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc v. NLRB
Headline: D.C. Circuit Rejects NLRB's Broad Definition of Protected Concerted Activity
Citation: 128 F.4th 1288
Brief at a Glance
Individual employee complaints about workplace conditions are not 'protected concerted activity' under the NLRA unless they involve group action or an intent to involve others.
- Employers are not automatically liable under the NLRA for retaliating against employees who make isolated complaints.
- To qualify as 'protected concerted activity,' employee actions generally need to involve group participation or an intent to involve others.
- The D.C. Circuit reviews the NLRB's statutory interpretations de novo, meaning without deference if found unreasonable.
Case Summary
Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc v. NLRB, decided by D.C. Circuit on February 18, 2025, resulted in a defendant win outcome. The D.C. Circuit reviewed the NLRB's decision that Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc. (JLL) violated the National Labor Relations Act by retaliating against an employee for engaging in protected concerted activity. The court found that the NLRB's interpretation of "protected concerted activity" was unreasonable and not entitled to deference, as it expanded the definition beyond established precedent. Consequently, the court vacated the NLRB's order. The court held: The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) unreasonably expanded the definition of "protected concerted activity" under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by including an employee's individual complaints about working conditions that were not shared with or discussed with other employees.. The court found that the NLRB's interpretation of "protected concerted activity" was not entitled to deference under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. because it conflicted with established precedent and was not a permissible construction of the statute.. An employee's individual complaints, to be considered "concerted," must be related to a "common purpose" or "group action" among employees, or at least be made with the intent to initiate group action.. The court held that JLL did not violate the NLRA by terminating an employee whose actions did not constitute protected concerted activity as defined by the NLRA and relevant case law.. The NLRB's order finding JLL in violation of the NLRA was vacated because it was based on an erroneous interpretation of the statute.. This decision narrows the scope of "protected concerted activity" under the NLRA, signaling that the NLRB cannot unilaterally expand this definition beyond established judicial interpretations. Employers should be aware that individual complaints, not shared or intended to be shared with colleagues, may not receive NLRA protection, potentially impacting how they handle employee grievances.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Case Analysis — Multiple Perspectives
Plain English (For Everyone)
A company, Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL), was accused of retaliating against an employee for complaining about office temperature. The National Labor Relations Board sided with the employee. However, a higher court disagreed, stating that simply complaining about a workplace issue, without involving others or trying to organize, isn't protected by federal law. Therefore, the company's punishment of the employee was not illegal under the National Labor Relations Act.
For Legal Practitioners
The D.C. Circuit vacated the NLRB's order finding JLL violated Section 8(a)(1) by retaliating against an employee for protected concerted activity. The court held de novo that the NLRB's expansive interpretation of 'concerted activity' to include an individual's isolated complaint about workplace conditions, absent any group action or intent to initiate group action, was an unreasonable interpretation of the NLRA and not entitled to deference. The ruling clarifies that individual grievances, without a concerted element, do not fall under the NLRA's protections.
For Law Students
This case, Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc. v. NLRB, involves the D.C. Circuit's de novo review of the NLRB's interpretation of 'protected concerted activity' under the NLRA. The court rejected the NLRB's finding that an employee's individual complaint about office temperature constituted protected concerted activity, emphasizing that such activity requires a group element or an intent to involve others. The ruling clarifies the boundaries of employee protections under the NLRA, distinguishing individual complaints from concerted action.
Newsroom Summary
A federal appeals court has ruled that an employee's individual complaints about workplace conditions, like office temperature, are not automatically protected by federal labor law. The D.C. Circuit overturned a National Labor Relations Board decision against Jones Lang LaSalle, stating that 'concerted activity' requires more than just one person speaking up. This decision clarifies what actions are protected under the National Labor Relations Act.
Key Holdings
The court established the following key holdings in this case:
- The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) unreasonably expanded the definition of "protected concerted activity" under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by including an employee's individual complaints about working conditions that were not shared with or discussed with other employees.
- The court found that the NLRB's interpretation of "protected concerted activity" was not entitled to deference under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. because it conflicted with established precedent and was not a permissible construction of the statute.
- An employee's individual complaints, to be considered "concerted," must be related to a "common purpose" or "group action" among employees, or at least be made with the intent to initiate group action.
- The court held that JLL did not violate the NLRA by terminating an employee whose actions did not constitute protected concerted activity as defined by the NLRA and relevant case law.
- The NLRB's order finding JLL in violation of the NLRA was vacated because it was based on an erroneous interpretation of the statute.
Key Takeaways
- Employers are not automatically liable under the NLRA for retaliating against employees who make isolated complaints.
- To qualify as 'protected concerted activity,' employee actions generally need to involve group participation or an intent to involve others.
- The D.C. Circuit reviews the NLRB's statutory interpretations de novo, meaning without deference if found unreasonable.
- Individual grievances about working conditions, without a concerted element, may fall outside the scope of NLRA protections.
- Employers should review their policies and practices regarding employee complaints to ensure compliance with the clarified definition of protected concerted activity.
Deep Legal Analysis
Standard of Review
De novo review. The court reviews the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) interpretation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) de novo, meaning it does not owe deference to the Board's interpretation if it finds it unreasonable or contrary to statutory intent.
Procedural Posture
The case reached the D.C. Circuit on a petition for review of a final order of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB had found that Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc. (JLL) violated the NLRA.
Burden of Proof
The burden of proof was on the General Counsel of the NLRB to demonstrate that JLL engaged in unlawful retaliation. The standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Tests Applied
Protected Concerted Activity
Elements: Activity must be concerted. · Activity must be protected. · Activity must be engaged in by an employee.
The court found that the NLRB's interpretation of 'protected concerted activity' was unreasonable because it expanded the definition beyond established precedent. Specifically, the NLRB's view that an employee's individual complaints about working conditions could be considered 'concerted' even without any prior or contemporaneous group action was not supported by the NLRA or prior case law. The court held that the employee's actions in complaining about the temperature in the office, while potentially a workplace grievance, did not rise to the level of protected concerted activity as defined by the NLRA and precedent.
Statutory References
| 29 U.S.C. § 157 | National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) - Right of employees to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. — This statute defines the scope of protected concerted activity. The NLRB's interpretation of this section was at issue, and the court found the Board's interpretation to be an unreasonable expansion of the statutory language and established precedent. |
| 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) | National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) - Unfair labor practices; interference with, restraint, or coercion of employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by section 157. — The NLRB found JLL violated this section by retaliating against an employee for engaging in protected concerted activity. The court's decision to vacate the NLRB's order means JLL is not found to have committed this unfair labor practice based on the NLRB's reasoning. |
Key Legal Definitions
Rule Statements
The Board's interpretation of 'concerted activity' here is an unreasonable expansion of the term beyond its established meaning.
An employee's resort to a grievance procedure is not itself concerted activity.
The Board's interpretation of the Act is entitled to deference only if it is based on a reasonable interpretation of the statute.
We review the Board's interpretation of the National Labor Relations Act de novo.
Remedies
The National Labor Relations Board's order against Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc. was vacated.
Entities and Participants
Judges
Key Takeaways
- Employers are not automatically liable under the NLRA for retaliating against employees who make isolated complaints.
- To qualify as 'protected concerted activity,' employee actions generally need to involve group participation or an intent to involve others.
- The D.C. Circuit reviews the NLRB's statutory interpretations de novo, meaning without deference if found unreasonable.
- Individual grievances about working conditions, without a concerted element, may fall outside the scope of NLRA protections.
- Employers should review their policies and practices regarding employee complaints to ensure compliance with the clarified definition of protected concerted activity.
Know Your Rights
Real-world scenarios derived from this court's ruling:
Scenario: An employee is unhappy with the office temperature and complains directly to their manager without discussing it with any colleagues or trying to get others to join in.
Your Rights: Under the D.C. Circuit's ruling in Jones Lang LaSalle, this individual complaint is likely not considered 'protected concerted activity' under the National Labor Relations Act. Therefore, if the employer takes adverse action against the employee for this complaint, it may not be an illegal retaliation under the NLRA.
What To Do: If you are an employee facing adverse action after making an individual complaint, consult with an employment lawyer to understand if your specific situation falls under any protections, as the definition of 'concerted activity' can be nuanced and depend on specific facts and other applicable laws.
Is It Legal?
Common legal questions answered by this ruling:
Is it legal for my employer to fire me for complaining about the office temperature?
Depends. If your complaint was purely individual and did not involve any group action or attempt to involve colleagues, it may not be protected 'concerted activity' under the National Labor Relations Act, as clarified by the D.C. Circuit in Jones Lang LaSalle. However, other laws or company policies might offer protection, and the specifics of your situation matter.
This ruling applies to federal labor law interpreted by the D.C. Circuit, which often sets precedent for the National Labor Relations Board's nationwide application of the NLRA.
Practical Implications
For Employers
This ruling provides employers with greater clarity that individual, unorganized complaints about working conditions may not be protected under the NLRA, potentially reducing the risk of unfair labor practice charges for actions taken in response to such complaints. However, employers must still be cautious about retaliating against employees for activities that clearly constitute protected concerted activity.
For Employees
Employees should understand that individual complaints about workplace issues, without any element of group action or an intent to involve colleagues, may not be protected by the NLRA. To ensure protection, employees may need to coordinate with coworkers or demonstrate an effort to engage others in their concerns.
For National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
The NLRB must adjust its interpretation and application of 'protected concerted activity' to align with the D.C. Circuit's narrower definition, which requires a group element or an intent to initiate group action, rather than allowing for expansive interpretations of individual complaints.
Related Legal Concepts
Actions taken by employees together to advance their interests, such as discussi... De Novo Review
An appellate court's review of a lower court's or agency's decision without givi... National Labor Relations Act
Federal law protecting employees' rights to organize, bargain collectively, and ... Unfair Labor Practice
Any action by an employer or union that violates the NLRA, such as retaliating a...
Frequently Asked Questions (31)
Comprehensive Q&A covering every aspect of this court opinion.
Basic Questions (8)
Q: What is Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc v. NLRB about?
Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc v. NLRB is a case decided by D.C. Circuit on February 18, 2025.
Q: What court decided Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc v. NLRB?
Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc v. NLRB was decided by the D.C. Circuit, which is part of the federal judiciary. This is a federal appellate court.
Q: When was Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc v. NLRB decided?
Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc v. NLRB was decided on February 18, 2025.
Q: What is the citation for Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc v. NLRB?
The citation for Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc v. NLRB is 128 F.4th 1288. Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.
Q: What is the main issue in Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc. v. NLRB?
The main issue was whether an employee's individual complaint about workplace conditions, like office temperature, constituted 'protected concerted activity' under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The D.C. Circuit reviewed the NLRB's decision that it did.
Q: What does 'protected concerted activity' mean under the NLRA?
It refers to actions employees take together for their mutual aid or protection, such as discussing wages or working conditions. The D.C. Circuit clarified that this generally requires group action or an intent to involve others, not just an individual complaint.
Q: Did the court rule in favor of the employee or the employer?
The court ruled in favor of the employer, Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc. It vacated the NLRB's order, finding the Board's interpretation of 'protected concerted activity' to be unreasonable.
Q: What standard of review did the D.C. Circuit use?
The court applied a de novo standard of review. This means they examined the NLRB's interpretation of the law from scratch, without giving deference to the Board's prior decision.
Legal Analysis (10)
Q: Is Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc v. NLRB published?
Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc v. NLRB is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.
Q: What was the ruling in Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc v. NLRB?
The court ruled in favor of the defendant in Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc v. NLRB. Key holdings: The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) unreasonably expanded the definition of "protected concerted activity" under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by including an employee's individual complaints about working conditions that were not shared with or discussed with other employees.; The court found that the NLRB's interpretation of "protected concerted activity" was not entitled to deference under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. because it conflicted with established precedent and was not a permissible construction of the statute.; An employee's individual complaints, to be considered "concerted," must be related to a "common purpose" or "group action" among employees, or at least be made with the intent to initiate group action.; The court held that JLL did not violate the NLRA by terminating an employee whose actions did not constitute protected concerted activity as defined by the NLRA and relevant case law.; The NLRB's order finding JLL in violation of the NLRA was vacated because it was based on an erroneous interpretation of the statute..
Q: Why is Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc v. NLRB important?
Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc v. NLRB has an impact score of 65/100, indicating significant legal impact. This decision narrows the scope of "protected concerted activity" under the NLRA, signaling that the NLRB cannot unilaterally expand this definition beyond established judicial interpretations. Employers should be aware that individual complaints, not shared or intended to be shared with colleagues, may not receive NLRA protection, potentially impacting how they handle employee grievances.
Q: What precedent does Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc v. NLRB set?
Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc v. NLRB established the following key holdings: (1) The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) unreasonably expanded the definition of "protected concerted activity" under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by including an employee's individual complaints about working conditions that were not shared with or discussed with other employees. (2) The court found that the NLRB's interpretation of "protected concerted activity" was not entitled to deference under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. because it conflicted with established precedent and was not a permissible construction of the statute. (3) An employee's individual complaints, to be considered "concerted," must be related to a "common purpose" or "group action" among employees, or at least be made with the intent to initiate group action. (4) The court held that JLL did not violate the NLRA by terminating an employee whose actions did not constitute protected concerted activity as defined by the NLRA and relevant case law. (5) The NLRB's order finding JLL in violation of the NLRA was vacated because it was based on an erroneous interpretation of the statute.
Q: What are the key holdings in Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc v. NLRB?
1. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) unreasonably expanded the definition of "protected concerted activity" under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by including an employee's individual complaints about working conditions that were not shared with or discussed with other employees. 2. The court found that the NLRB's interpretation of "protected concerted activity" was not entitled to deference under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. because it conflicted with established precedent and was not a permissible construction of the statute. 3. An employee's individual complaints, to be considered "concerted," must be related to a "common purpose" or "group action" among employees, or at least be made with the intent to initiate group action. 4. The court held that JLL did not violate the NLRA by terminating an employee whose actions did not constitute protected concerted activity as defined by the NLRA and relevant case law. 5. The NLRB's order finding JLL in violation of the NLRA was vacated because it was based on an erroneous interpretation of the statute.
Q: What cases are related to Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc v. NLRB?
Precedent cases cited or related to Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc v. NLRB: Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984); NLRB v. City Disposal Systems, Inc., 465 U.S. 822 (1984).
Q: What is the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)?
The NLRA is a federal law that protects the rights of most private-sector employees to organize, bargain collectively, and engage in 'concerted activities' for their mutual aid or protection. It also prohibits employers from engaging in unfair labor practices.
Q: What is the significance of the court finding the NLRB's interpretation 'unreasonable'?
When a court finds an agency's interpretation of a statute unreasonable, it is not entitled to deference. This means the court will not follow the agency's interpretation and will instead apply its own understanding of the law, as it did here by vacating the NLRB's order.
Q: Does this ruling mean employers can retaliate against any employee complaint?
No. The ruling specifically addresses 'protected concerted activity.' If an employee's complaint involves group action, is part of an ongoing group effort, or is clearly intended to involve other employees, it may still be protected under the NLRA.
Q: What is the difference between an individual complaint and concerted activity?
An individual complaint is typically made by one employee alone about a personal grievance or a general workplace issue. Concerted activity involves two or more employees acting together, or an individual acting on behalf of others, to address terms and conditions of employment.
Practical Implications (4)
Q: How does Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc v. NLRB affect me?
This decision narrows the scope of "protected concerted activity" under the NLRA, signaling that the NLRB cannot unilaterally expand this definition beyond established judicial interpretations. Employers should be aware that individual complaints, not shared or intended to be shared with colleagues, may not receive NLRA protection, potentially impacting how they handle employee grievances. As a decision from a federal appellate court, its reach is national. This case is moderate in legal complexity to understand.
Q: Can an employee be fired for complaining about office temperature?
It depends. If the complaint was purely individual and not part of a group effort or intended to involve others, the D.C. Circuit's ruling suggests it may not be protected by the NLRA, potentially allowing the employer to take action. However, other laws or specific circumstances might apply.
Q: What should an employee do if they want to ensure their complaint is protected?
To increase the likelihood of protection under the NLRA, employees should try to discuss concerns with colleagues, organize with them, or make it clear they are acting on behalf of a group or seeking group support for their complaint.
Q: How does this ruling affect employers' policies on employee complaints?
Employers may feel more confident in addressing individual employee complaints that do not appear to involve group action, as such actions may not be shielded by the NLRA. However, they must still be careful not to retaliate against clearly protected concerted activities.
Historical Context (2)
Q: What is the historical context of 'concerted activity' under the NLRA?
The concept of 'concerted activity' has been part of the NLRA since its inception in 1935, rooted in the idea of employees banding together for mutual aid. Case law has evolved over decades to define its scope, with this ruling representing a recent judicial interpretation.
Q: Has the definition of 'concerted activity' always been this narrow?
No, the interpretation has evolved. While the core principle of group action remains, the NLRB has sometimes interpreted it broadly. This D.C. Circuit decision pushes back against overly broad interpretations, emphasizing the need for a clear group element.
Procedural Questions (4)
Q: What was the docket number in Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc v. NLRB?
The docket number for Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc v. NLRB is 24-1079. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.
Q: Can Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc v. NLRB be appealed?
Potentially — decisions from federal appellate courts can be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States via a petition for certiorari, though the Court accepts very few cases.
Q: What is the procedural posture of this case?
The case came to the D.C. Circuit on a petition for review of a final order issued by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB had found Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc. (JLL) in violation of the NLRA.
Q: What happens when a court vacates an NLRB order?
When a court vacates an order, it essentially cancels or annuls it. In this case, it means the NLRB's finding that JLL committed an unfair labor practice was overturned by the D.C. Circuit.
Cited Precedents
This opinion references the following precedent cases:
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)
- NLRB v. City Disposal Systems, Inc., 465 U.S. 822 (1984)
Case Details
| Case Name | Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc v. NLRB |
| Citation | 128 F.4th 1288 |
| Court | D.C. Circuit |
| Date Filed | 2025-02-18 |
| Docket Number | 24-1079 |
| Precedential Status | Published |
| Outcome | Defendant Win |
| Disposition | vacated |
| Impact Score | 65 / 100 |
| Significance | This decision narrows the scope of "protected concerted activity" under the NLRA, signaling that the NLRB cannot unilaterally expand this definition beyond established judicial interpretations. Employers should be aware that individual complaints, not shared or intended to be shared with colleagues, may not receive NLRA protection, potentially impacting how they handle employee grievances. |
| Complexity | moderate |
| Legal Topics | National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) Section 7, Protected concerted activity, Definition of "concerted", Employer retaliation, Administrative Procedure Act (APA) review of agency action, Chevron deference |
| Judge(s) | Katsas, Gregory G. |
| Jurisdiction | federal |
Related Legal Resources
About This Analysis
This comprehensive multi-pass AI-generated analysis of Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc v. NLRB was produced by CaseLawBrief to help legal professionals, researchers, students, and the general public understand this court opinion in plain English. This case received our HEAVY-tier enrichment with 5 AI analysis passes covering core analysis, deep legal structure, comprehensive FAQ, multi-audience summaries, and cross-case practical intelligence.
CaseLawBrief aggregates court opinions from CourtListener, a project of the Free Law Project, and enriches them with AI-powered analysis. Our goal is to make the law more accessible and understandable to everyone, regardless of their legal background.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Related Cases
Other opinions on National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) Section 7 or from the D.C. Circuit:
-
J. Sidak v. United States International Trade Commission
D.C. Circuit Affirms ITC's No-Infringement Finding in Trade CaseD.C. Circuit · 2026-04-24
-
Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services v. Markwayne Mullin
Asylum seekers lack standing to challenge park shelter settlementD.C. Circuit · 2026-04-24
-
United States v. All Petroleum-Product Cargo Onboard the M/T Arina
D.C. Circuit Upholds Warrantless Search of M/T Arina CargoD.C. Circuit · 2026-04-21
-
National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States v. National Park Service
NPS Concessions in Historic Park Upheld by D.C. CircuitD.C. Circuit · 2026-04-17
-
Inova Health Care Services v. Omni Shoreham Corporation
Court finds Omni Shoreham liable for unpaid healthcare servicesD.C. Circuit · 2026-04-17
-
Jane Doe v. Todd Blanche
Attorney's statements during litigation are privileged, barring defamation claimD.C. Circuit · 2026-04-17
-
John Doe v. SEC
D.C. Circuit: SEC ALJs violate Appointments ClauseD.C. Circuit · 2026-04-17
-
Secretary of Labor v. KC Transport, Inc.
D.C. Circuit Upholds NLRB Finding of Unlawful Retaliation Against EmployeesD.C. Circuit · 2026-04-17