The NFIB Small Business Legal Center is involved in numerous cases involving independent contractor classifications, nationwide injunctions, workplace bargaining agreements, and the enforceability of website terms and conditions.

MNABC v. Blissenbach

NFIB filed an amicus brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit. The case is a challenge to a Minnesota law regulating the classification of independent contractors.

NFIB argues:

• The law’s inclusion in a spending bill with at least a dozen other subjects violates the state constitution’s “Single Subject and Title Clause.”
• The vague classification standards in the law will be harmful to small businesses.

Trump v. CASA

NFIB filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court. This case deals with the ability of district courts to issue nationwide injunctions, and the ability of associations, like NFIB, to seek that relief on behalf of its members.

NFIB’s brief argues:

• District courts have the power to issue nationwide relief and their doing so is necessary to protect against unlawful government action.
• Precedent, history, judicial efficiency, and the Constitution support the right of associations to seek relief on behalf of all members, instead of just those listed in a lawsuit.

Brown-Forman v. NLRB

NFIB joined an amicus brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The case concerns the NLRB’s standard for ordering an employer to bargain with a union, regardless of the workplace’s representation status.

NFIB’s brief argues two main points:

• The new standard violates the U.S Supreme Court’s decision in NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co. by dismissing the possibility of a rerun election.
• The Board decision in this case must be reversed because it rests entirely on the flawed and invalid Cemex standard, which cannot supersede Supreme Court precedent, nor be adopted as an agency standard without first undergoing the administrative rulemaking process.

Chabolla v. ClassPass

NFIB filed an amicus brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The case concerns online agreements and what visual requirements must be met for an online user’s assent to website terms and conditions to be considered an enforceable contract.

NFIB’s brief argues two main points:

• The panel decision destroys what predictability small businesses used to have in organizing their websites and directly conflicts with recent Ninth Circuit rulings.
• Small businesses need certainty and predictability from the Ninth Circuit on how to display their online agreements.

The NFIB Small Business Legal Center protects the rights of small business owners in the nation’s courts. NFIB is currently active in more than 40 cases in federal and state courts across the country and in the U.S. Supreme Court.