Source: cases/29usc158/f3d-909-427-capital-med-ctr.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_909/0427_01/index.html
Section 7's protections encompass the "rights to discuss organization and the terms and conditions of their employment, to criticize or complain about their employer or their conditions of employment, and to enlist the assistance of others in addressing employment matters."
In short, the Board reasonably interpreted Section 7 in concluding that the Republic Aviation presumption could encompass not only solicitation and distribution on employer property, but also picketing.
But outside of immediate patient-care areas, such as in hospital lounges and cafeterias, a prohibition on employee solicitation of union support is presumptively invalid unless the hospital can demonstrate the need for the restriction "to avoid disruption of health-care operations or disturbance of patients."
We therefore uphold the Board's finding that the picketing at issue here presented no likelihood of disruption or disturbance, and we sustain the Board's resulting conclusion that Capital violated the NLRA by attempting to stop the employees from holding picket signs.
casedsl 1.2 # author: Flash3 (gemini-3.8-flash-high) # triaged-by: Fable (2026-11-10) case /f3d/909/0427-01 name Capital Med. Ctr. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. cite 909 F.3d 427 (2018) court Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia date 2018-08-10 url catalog/cases/f3d/volume_909/0427_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/f3d_909.jsonl sha1=a0953a199642ed082426da5d59df4f4a6654a13e chars=27846 opinion op : majority by Srinivasan @0..27846 controlling party p1 : Capital Medical Center count c1 : § 8(a)(1) prohibition of stationary picketing law 29usc158 role applied posture petition for review and cross-application for enforcement of NLRB order finding hospital committed § 8(a)(1) unfair labor practice by prohibiting off-duty employees from peacefully holding picket signs outside entrance; enforcement granted and petition denied result claimant-won element protected-right : satisfied [law] party p1 count c1 route concerted-activity pattern off-duty employees' stationary, non-obstructive holding of picket signs beside a hospital's non-emergency entrance fact @6768..7113 [supports] | Around 4:00 p.m., two to four employees took leaflets and picket signs from the sidewalk and walked onto hospital property. They stood next to a nonemergency entrance to the building while holding the signs, with some also handing out leaflets while holding the signs. The signs contained the messages "Respect Our Care" and "Fair Contract Now." fact @27032..27211 [supports] | Undisputed record evidence establishes that there were only two to four employees who held picket signs on the hospital's property, standing stationary by a nonemergency entrance. rule @2306..2580 | Section 7's protections encompass the "rights to discuss organization and the terms and conditions of their employment, to criticize or complain about their employer or their conditions of employment, and to enlist the assistance of others in addressing employment matters." held @20284..20486 | In short, the Board reasonably interpreted Section 7 in concluding that the Republic Aviation presumption could encompass not only solicitation and distribution on employer property, but also picketing. gloss The contested question was legal: whether picketing on the employer's premises is categorically outside the Republic Aviation protection that covers leafleting. The court defers (Chevron) to the Board's reading of Section 7 that it is not. ? route: concertedness was never disputed; what was decided is whether on-premises picketing by off-duty employees keeps Section 7 protection. No route names that sub-question; concerted-activity (menu: "peaceful picketing") is the nearest. ? basis: the Board "assume[d] arguendo" that holding the signs was picketing; the protection ruling itself is a deferential statutory interpretation, hence [law]. element interference : satisfied [proved] party p1 count c1 route access-and-property-restrictions pattern hospital permits leafleting at the entrance but orders off-duty employees with picket signs off its property, threatens discipline and calls the police fact @7114..7273 [supports] | Multiple hospital personnel told the employees that they could continue distributing leaflets but could not stand on hospital property with their picket signs. fact @7680..7793 [supports] | Capital's counsel then called the Union's attorney and threatened to discipline the employees or call the police. fact @27212..27426 [supports] | They did not chant, march, or obstruct visitors from entering or leaving the hospital, and Capital offered no evidence demonstrating that the peaceful holding of picket signs nonetheless could disrupt patient care. rule @4691..5001 | But outside of immediate patient-care areas, such as in hospital lounges and cafeterias, a prohibition on employee solicitation of union support is presumptively invalid unless the hospital can demonstrate the need for the restriction "to avoid disruption of health-care operations or disturbance of patients." held @27427..27695 | We therefore uphold the Board's finding that the picketing at issue here presented no likelihood of disruption or disturbance, and we sustain the Board's resulting conclusion that Capital violated the NLRA by attempting to stop the employees from holding picket signs. gloss Substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that the hospital did not rebut the hospital-tailored Republic Aviation presumption; the restriction therefore violated § 8(a)(1).