ARAMARK CORP. v. N.L.R.B. Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A private contractor for government entities refused to bargain with unions, arguing the NLRB lacked jurisdiction. The court remanded, holding that under binding circuit precedent, the NLRB must first determine if the contractor retains enough control over employment terms to engage in meaningful bargaining.
Legal Significance: This case highlights the conflict between an agency’s (NLRB’s) revised jurisdictional test and established circuit precedent. It reinforces that a circuit court panel is bound by prior circuit holdings, even when an agency changes its underlying policy, thus limiting the NLRB’s jurisdiction over government contractors.
ARAMARK CORP. v. N.L.R.B. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Aramark Corporation, a private food service provider, held contracts to manage operations for two government entities: the Duval County School District in Florida and The Citadel, a state-owned military college in South Carolina. Unions won representation elections for Aramark’s employees at both locations. Aramark refused to bargain, challenging the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) jurisdiction on two grounds. First, Aramark argued it was exempt from the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) as a “political subdivision” under § 2(2) because public officials had some control over its on-site managers. Second, it contended that its contracts with the government entities severely limited its control over essential terms and conditions of employment, such as wages and benefits, thereby preventing it from engaging in meaningful collective bargaining. The NLRB, applying its recently adopted standard from Management Training Corp., asserted jurisdiction. This standard only requires that the employer meet the statutory definition of “employer” and the relevant monetary thresholds, dispensing with any inquiry into the employer’s control over labor relations.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Must the National Labor Relations Board, when determining its jurisdiction over a private employer contracting with an exempt government entity, inquire whether the employer retains sufficient control over essential terms and conditions of employment to engage in meaningful collective bargaining, despite the Board’s adoption of a new standard that eliminates this inquiry?
Yes. The court denied enforcement of the NLRB’s bargaining order and remanded Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Must the National Labor Relations Board, when determining its jurisdiction over a private employer contracting with an exempt government entity, inquire whether the employer retains sufficient control over essential terms and conditions of employment to engage in meaningful collective bargaining, despite the Board’s adoption of a new standard that eliminates this inquiry?
Conclusion
This case demonstrates the supremacy of circuit precedent over conflicting agency policy, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut a
Legal Rule
Under Tenth Circuit precedent, when a private employer contracts to provide services Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolor
Legal Analysis
The court first addressed and rejected Aramark's claim that it was an Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia des
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A private company contracting with a government entity is not an