The D.C. Circuit Court has ruled in a significant case regarding employee rights and salary sharing. In Vermont Information Processing, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the court decided that Vermont Information Processing (VIP) unlawfully fired an employee for sharing salary information while upholding the NLRB's order to reinstate that employee. The ruling, issued on May 26, 2026, also addressed issues surrounding the termination of three other employees involved in the salary-sharing activity.

This case matters because it highlights the protections employees have under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) when sharing salary information. The court's decision could influence how companies handle similar situations in the future, especially as transparency about salaries becomes increasingly important in the workplace.

Background

The dispute began when four employees at VIP, a software company serving the beverage industry, created a salary-sharing spreadsheet to compare their salaries. The employees involved were Christopher Bendel, Gordon Dragoon, Kaleb Noble, and Kestrel Swift. After a restructuring plan was introduced by VIP in February 2022, Bendel expressed dissatisfaction with his new role and shared his salary information with his colleagues. This led to the creation of the spreadsheet, which was then distributed among other employees.

On the same day that VIP management discovered the spreadsheet, they decided to terminate Bendel, citing his attitude and conduct during the restructuring discussions. Shortly thereafter, the company also fired Dragoon, Noble, and Swift, claiming their involvement in the salary-sharing activity and related discussions. The employees filed a charge with the NLRB, alleging they were fired for engaging in protected concerted activity under the NLRA.

The NLRB investigated the matter and ruled in favor of the employees, stating that VIP had violated the NLRA by terminating them for their participation in salary sharing. The NLRB ordered VIP to reinstate the employees and provide financial compensation for their losses. VIP then petitioned the D.C. Circuit Court for review of the NLRB's decision.

The Ruling

The D.C. Circuit Court upheld the NLRB's determination that VIP illegally fired Bendel for his role in creating and sharing the salary spreadsheet. The court found substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that Bendel's termination was directly linked to his protected activity under the NLRA. The court stated, "The timing of the terminations and the lack of any credible evidence that [VIP] planned to discharge [Bendel] prior to [the day that management learned of the spreadsheet] supports the inference of discriminatory discharge."

However, the court also found that the NLRB had overstepped its bounds regarding the terminations of Dragoon, Noble, and Swift. The court ruled that the NLRB had impermissibly broadened its theory of liability beyond the scope of the original complaint against VIP. The judges noted that the NLRB’s findings regarding the other three employees were not adequately supported by the evidence presented.

Judge Pan delivered the opinion for the court, while Judge Walker filed a concurring and dissenting opinion, indicating some disagreement with parts of the ruling. The court ultimately granted VIP's petition in part, denied it in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings concerning the other three employees.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for employee rights, particularly regarding salary transparency. The court reaffirmed that sharing salary information among employees is a protected activity under the NLRA. This decision may encourage more employees to engage in such activities, knowing they are protected from retaliation by their employers.

Additionally, the ruling sets a precedent regarding the limits of employer actions in response to employee conduct related to salary sharing. Companies may need to reevaluate their policies and practices to ensure they comply with labor laws and do not retaliate against employees for engaging in protected activities. The decision also emphasizes the importance of proper procedures when terminating employees, particularly in relation to their participation in concerted activities.

What's Next

VIP can appeal the court's decision regarding the findings related to Dragoon, Noble, and Swift, as the case has been remanded for further consideration. The NLRB may also need to clarify its stance on workplace discussions that fall under the category of protected conduct. The outcome of this case could lead to further legal challenges and clarifications about employee rights and employer responsibilities under the NLRA.