NLRB Judge Rules American Tower Violated Law with Confidentiality Policy
ALJ finds American Tower illegally threatened employees and maintained overly broad pay secrecy rules, but employee's termination was lawful due to refusal to perform reorganized job duties.
An Administrative Law Judge with the National Labor Relations Board issued a split decision on January 28, 2026, finding that American Tower Corporation committed unfair labor practices by making implied threats of discharge and maintaining an unlawful confidentiality agreement that prohibited employees from discussing their compensation.
The case centered on Michael Hoffman, an Operational Site Lead who advocated for wage increases for coworkers and expressed interest in unionizing with the Communications Workers of America. Between March and August 2023, Hoffman repeatedly raised concerns about compensation and working conditions with company management, activities protected under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
ALJ Keltner W. Locke found violations when HR Representative Stephanie Brien told Hoffman in April 2023 that "nobody is forcing him to stay here" after he complained about wages, and when VP Eric Dudek made a similar comment in July. The judge applied Board precedent establishing such statements as unlawful implied threats, though he expressed constitutional concerns about treating them as per se violations.
The decision also found American Tower's confidentiality agreement unlawful under the Stericycle framework because it prohibited employees from disclosing "salary and compensation information" and broadly restricted discussion of "methods of operation" and "business methods" that could include working conditions. The company failed to demonstrate it couldn't achieve legitimate business interests through more narrowly tailored rules.
However, applying the Wright Line test, the ALJ found Hoffman's discharge lawful. While Hoffman engaged in protected activity and the company knew of his union sympathies, the judge found insufficient evidence of anti-union animus and no causal connection between protected activity and the termination. The decision credited evidence that Hoffman was discharged for legitimate business reasons: his persistent refusal to commit to working with a construction manager as required by reorganized job duties, combined with prior complaints about unprofessional conduct.
The company must rescind the unlawful confidentiality provisions, post notices, and cease making implied threats, but no remedial action is required for Hoffman's discharge.
Key Points
- Two violations found: Implied threats of discharge for protected activity and unlawful pay secrecy/confidentiality rules
- Discharge upheld: Employee's termination deemed lawful despite union activity due to refusal to perform legitimately changed job duties
- Protected activity confirmed: Advocating for coworkers' wages and discussing unionization are protected under Section 7
- Confidentiality rules scrutinized: Broad restrictions on discussing compensation and working conditions violate the NLRA
- Wright Line analysis: Company demonstrated it would have terminated employee regardless of union involvement
- Constitutional concerns raised: ALJ questioned treating certain management statements as per se threats but followed binding precedent
Source Author: Administrative Law Judge Keltner W. Locke
Source: National Labor Relations Board Division of Judges, Decision JD-07-26
Source Link: https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d45841abb63
