🗞️ NLRB ALJ Decision: Motorola Can't Fire Worker Who Lied About Discussing Wages

Elisa Sheley, a remote technical support employee at Motorola Solutions since 2017, engaged in multiple conversations with coworkers in October 2023 about compensation. From October 17-19, Sheley and coworker Gaelon Tinder exchanged messages complaining that their pay was too low for their workload, and discussed submitting anonymous complaints via the company's "Peakon Employee Voice" survey, with Tinder stating he would discuss raises with their supervisor (though he never did).

On October 31, Sheley told coworker Ashley Nicols that another employee, Robert Rivera, was paid over $70,000 annually, claiming this was too much for the work he performed, and that she and Nicols could do Rivera's job if "fairly compensated." Rivera subsequently complained to management that his salary information had been shared with team members, expressing concern about privacy.

The Investigation and Discharge

On November 1, 2023, senior manager Tad Johnson conducted an investigation, asking each team member the same question: "Do you know anything about the sharing of potential pay information of another team member?" When Johnson asked Sheley this question, she twice denied knowing anything, lying out of fear for retaliation and protection of the coworker who told her Rivera's salary.

However, Nicols told Johnson about her chat messages with Sheley and provided the actual text exchanges. On November 15, 2023, senior employee relations manager Brian Sincora terminated Sheley solely for "providing untruthful information during a company investigation; a Class 3 offense under Motorola's progressive discipline policy. During the termination meeting, Sincora also told Sheley she was "not allowed to discuss other employees' paychecks."

Legal Holdings

ALJ Muhl found three separate violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA:

1. Unlawful Interrogation (November 1)

Applying the Rossmore House totality-of-circumstances test, the ALJ found Johnson's questioning unlawfully coercive because:

• The information sought concerned Sheley's protected wage discussions
• This was the first one-on-one meeting between Johnson and Sheley
• Johnson was a high-level supervisor (five managers reported to him)
• Sheley lied twice out of fear of consequences
• No assurances against reprisals were given
• Although Motorola claimed legitimate business interests (data security concerns), Johnson never conveyed this purpose or provided assurances to employees

2. Unlawful Instruction Not to Discuss Wages (November 15)

Sincora's statement during the termination meeting that Sheley could not discuss other employees' pay violated Section 8(a)(1), as the NLRA explicitly protects such discussions. The fact that Sincora believed such communication was prohibited is irrelevant - the objective meaning of the statement controls.

3. Unlawful Discharge (November 15)

The ALJ held the discharge unlawful under two independent frameworks:

Direct Violation Framework: Under United Services Automobile Assn., 340 NLRB 784 (2003) and Spartan Plastics, 269 NLRB 546 (1984), when an employer unlawfully interrogates an employee about protected concerted activity, the employee has no obligation to respond truthfully. Discharging an employee for lying about protected activity in response to unlawful interrogation is itself unlawful. As the Board stated in Spartan Plastics: "it can be no defense to Respondent to recite a wrong [by the employee] in responding to an action of the Respondent which itself constituted a violation of the law."

Wright Line Framework: The ALJ also analyzed the discharge under Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), finding the General Counsel established that Sheley's protected activity was a motivating factor based on:

• Protected concerted activity (wage discussions)
• Employer knowledge (Nicols provided chat messages)
• Animus (unlawful interrogation, instruction not to discuss wages, and Sincora telling Sheley that revealing Rivera's pay "was not right")

Motorola failed to meet its burden of proving it would have discharged Sheley absent her protected activity. The employer's reliance on five prior terminations for lying during investigations was unpersuasive because those employees lied about job performance or business matters (timecards, overtime, remote work issues), not about protected concerted activity.

The "Inherently Concerted" Doctrine

A critical legal principle in this decision is the Board's long-standing "inherently concerted" doctrine. While Sheley's conversations with Tinder constituted traditional protected concerted activity (two employees discussing wages and planning to seek raises), her discussion with Nicols about Rivera's wages was also protected under the inherently concerted doctrine.

Since Hoodview Vending, 359 NLRB 355 (2012), the board has held that employee wage discussions are "inherently concerted" and protected regardless of whether they are engaged in with the express object of inducing group action. As explained in Aroostook County Regional Ophthalmology Center, 317 NLRB 218 (1995):

Wages are a "vital term and condition of employment," the "grist on which concerted activity feeds," and such discussions are often preliminary to organizing or other action for mutual aid or protection.

This means that conduct deemed "inherently concerted" is simultaneously protected, the General Counsel does not need to make a separate showing of "mutual aid or protection." The Supreme Court has recognized that "few topics are of such immediate concern to employees as the level of their wages." Eastex, Inc. v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 556, 569 (1978).

ALJ Muhl rejected Motorola's argument that inherently concerted activity still requires a separate showing of "mutual aid or protection," noting this contradicts Board precedent holding that inherently concerted activity is, standing alone, protected concerted activity.

Policy Implications

This decision reinforces several critical NLRA protections:

1. Wage discussion rights are broad: Employees can discuss not only their own wages but also other employees' wages, even expressing opinions that a coworker is overpaid
2. The inherently concerted doctrine remains robust: No proof of intent to engage in group action is required for wage discussions
3. Employers cannot investigate protected activity: Questioning employees about protected wage discussions, even for legitimate business reasons, requires assurances against reprisals
4. Truth-telling obligations have limits: Employees can lie when unlawfully interrogated about protected conduct
5. Discipline policies must account for protected activity: Even consistently-applied policies prohibiting lying during investigations cannot be used when the lie concerns protected activity

Remedies Ordered

The ALJ ordered Motorola Solutions to:

• Offer Sheley full reinstatement to her former position or substantially equivalent position
• Provide make-whole relief including backpay with interest, search-for-work expenses, and compensation for adverse tax consequences
• Remove all references to the discharge from Sheley's personnel files
• Cease and desist from interrogating employees about protected activity and instructing them not to discuss wages
• Post notice to employees about their rights

Key Points

• Employee discussions about wages—including other employees' wages—are protected "inherently concerted" activity under Section 7 of the NLRA, even without proof of intent to engage in group action
• Employees have no obligation to respond truthfully to unlawful interrogation about their protected concerted activity (United Services Automobile, Spartan Plastics)
• Employers cannot discharge employees for lying about protected activity during an unlawful investigation, even if they have a consistently-applied policy against dishonesty
• The Rossmore House test evaluates whether interrogation is coercive under the totality of circumstances, considering: (1) employer history of hostility, (2) nature of information sought, (3) identity of questioner, (4) place and method of interrogation, and (5) truthfulness of reply
• Employers violate Section 8(a)(1) by instructing employees they cannot discuss other employees' pay, even if the employer believes such restrictions are lawful
• Legitimate business interests do not cure unlawful interrogation unless the employer communicates those interests and provides assurances against reprisals
• Under Wright Line, employers must prove they would have taken the same action absent protected activity; prior terminations for lying about non-protected conduct are not comparable
• The inherently concerted doctrine finds certain topics (wages, job security, schedules) are protected regardless of whether group action is contemplated because they are "vital" employment terms and "the grist on which concerted activity feeds"

Primary Author: Administrative Law Judge Charles J. Muhl, National Labor Relations Board

Primary Source: Motorola Solutions, Inc., Case 27-CA-330814, JD-94-25 (NLRB Dec. 18, 2025)

Primary Source Link: NLRB Case 27-CA-330814 (official case page)

Supplemental Resources

• National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 151-169
• Section 7 Employee Rights
• United Services Automobile Assn., 340 NLRB 784 (2003)
• Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980)
• Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176 (1984)
• Alternative Energy Applications, Inc., 361 NLRB 1203 (2014)

This analysis is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The decision is subject to exceptions and review by the full NLRB Board and potentially federal courts of appeals.