NLRB Upholds ACLU Firing of Senior Counsel

A divided National Labor Relations Board ruled the American Civil Liberties Union lawfully terminated senior policy counsel Katherine Oh.

Updated on Nov. 2, 2026 in Unions

NLRB Upholds ACLU Firing of Senior Counsel

The National Labor Relations Board overturned an administrative law judge's ruling in the case, finding the ACLU would have fired Oh even absent her protected complaints. The decision, issued on a Friday, was divided.

Why it matters

The ruling addresses whether workplace complaints, including those alleging sexism, are protected activity that cannot be cited in a termination. Two board members said the judge committed a threshold error by deeming Oh's complaints a reason for her firing.

The NLRB split on the case, with Chair James Murphy and Scott Mayer dissenting from the majority. The majority held the ACLU would have terminated Oh regardless of her protected activity.

The players

National Labor Relations Board

The federal agency that enforces U.S. labor law, including protections for employees who complain about workplace conditions.

American Civil Liberties Union

A nonprofit civil rights organization that litigates and advocates on constitutional and civil liberties issues across the United States.

Katherine Oh

A former senior policy counsel at the ACLU whose termination was the subject of the labor board case.

James Murphy

The Republican chair of the National Labor Relations Board who dissented from the majority in this decision.

Michael Rosas

The administrative law judge whose earlier ruling that Oh's complaints were protected activity was overturned by the board.

The details

Katherine Oh, a senior policy counsel at the ACLU, was terminated after a series of workplace complaints that included allegations of sexism. Administrative Law Judge Michael Rosas had previously ruled that those complaints were protected activity, but the board reversed that finding.

The NLRB issued its decision on a Friday in the week of publication, with the core event dated October 30, 2026.

Legal Context

The case turns on the National Labor Relations Act's framework for retaliation claims, which asks whether protected complaints were a motivating factor in a termination. The board's reversal of an administrative law judge reflects how that framework is applied to professional employees at advocacy organizations.

Employees who raise workplace complaints may have their protections narrowed depending on how the board frames the reason for termination. Workers at advocacy and nonprofit organizations should understand how retaliation claims are evaluated under federal labor law.

The takeaway

Raising workplace complaints is protected, but employers may still act lawfully if they show the same decision would have been made regardless. Employees weighing a complaint should document the timeline and the stated reasons for any adverse action.