🗞️ You Can't Fire Someone for Talking About Their Tips: The John Wright Restaurant Case

Two days after a corporate banquet at John Wright Restaurant in Wrightsville, Pennsylvania, Mackenzie Caterbone returned to work and the conversation among staff turned to tips — specifically, whether owner James Switzenberg had helped himself to more than his fair share of the $2,800 gratuity left by the client at the Friday night event. Three days after that conversation, she received a text message from Switzenberg telling her she was fired and not to respond. He was blocking her.

The text cited "talking about pay" as grounds for termination.

On April 21, 2026, Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan ruled that firing Caterbone for exactly that reason was illegal. His decision, issued on behalf of the National Labor Relations Board, found that the restaurant had committed three separate violations of the National Labor Relations Act — a ruling that underscores how far federal labor law reaches into even the most informal workplace conversations, union or not.

A memo that crossed a legal line. The trouble at John Wright predated Caterbone's dismissal by roughly nine months. In March 2023, a management representative sent an all-staff memo listing various workplace rules. Buried among reminders about dress code and off-duty conduct was this instruction: salaries, hourly wages, and tip-outs were "personal and should not be discussed" with coworkers. Employees with concerns were directed instead to schedule a meeting with management and the owner.

The judge wasted little time with it. Under Section 7 of the NLRA, the right to discuss compensation with coworkers is not a courtesy extended by employers — it is a federally protected activity, extending to all workers whether or not they belong to a union. Even a single instance of prohibiting such discussion violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The restaurant's argument that the memo's author lacked authority to speak for management found no traction; Judge Amchan found she had apparent authority to do exactly that.

A dismissal the record couldn't support. Caterbone had worked for the restaurant for about six years. Her participation in the December conversation — asking about her share of the banquet tip, suggesting that Switzenberg's practice of taking a cut for himself might be improper, and raising the matter with the banquet manager — fell squarely within what labor law calls protected concerted activity: collective action by employees to improve or scrutinize their working conditions.

At trial, Switzenberg offered a different account of why she was fired. He testified that Caterbone had gone into a manager's office, found a confidential tip allocation sheet, and used it to stir up grievances. That story, the judge concluded, was fabricated. No evidence placed Caterbone in that office. No evidence established that the document was even there. And critically, Switzenberg's own termination text made no mention of it — despite the fact that, had the office entry truly been the reason for the firing, one would expect it to appear in the message used to deliver that news. "I find that reason is fabricated," Judge Amchan wrote, "and that Switzenberg terminated Caterbone for precisely the reasons stated in his December 6 text message."

That finding was legally significant. Under the Wright Line burden-shifting framework the Board applies in cases like this, once the General Counsel shows that protected activity motivated a termination, the burden falls on the employer to prove the employee would have been let go regardless. An employer whose stated justification is false cannot meet that burden.

The judge also rejected the argument that Caterbone's complaints needed to be factually correct to be protected. Under established Board precedent, the merits of a worker's grievance are irrelevant to its protected status — unless the statements were knowingly false and deliberately malicious, a threshold the restaurant did not come close to meeting.

The interrogation. Before pulling the trigger on the firing, Switzenberg pulled aside two other employees — Parker Geesey, the banquet chef, and Allyson Lehman — and pressed them for details about who had been discussing tips. Neither conversation was initiated by the employees. Geesey's hesitation in answering, the judge noted, spoke for itself. Questioning workers about the protected activities of their colleagues, without any legitimate business justification and without assurances that no reprisal would follow, is itself a violation of the Act.

What the restaurant must now do. The order requires Wrightsville Firewater LLC to offer Caterbone her job back, or a substantially equivalent position, and to make her financially whole — full backpay with daily compounded interest, reimbursement of job-search costs, and compensation for any tax consequences of receiving a lump-sum payment. The unlawful discharge must be purged from her employment file. The no-wage-discussion policy must be rescinded. And for 60 consecutive days, notices informing employees of their rights must be posted throughout the facility and distributed electronically.

The decision arrives against a backdrop of ongoing legal and institutional debate over the NLRB's authority and scope. But the underlying statute it enforces has remained consistent: employers — from multinational corporations to family-owned restaurants — cannot prohibit workers from discussing what they earn. As the Board's own guidance puts it, wage discussions are often a precursor to organizing and other forms of collective action, which is precisely why they are protected.

For the workers and owners of small hospitality businesses in particular, the case offers a pointed reminder. A staff memo, a dismissive text message, and a story that didn't hold up in court proved to be a costly combination.

Key Points

• Discussing wages, salaries, and tips with coworkers is a federally protected right under Section 7 of the NLRA, applying equally to union and non-union employees
• A single written policy prohibiting wage discussions, even one framed as routine housekeeping, constitutes an unlawful workplace rule under Section 8(a)(1)
• Complaining to a supervisor about tip distribution practices qualifies as protected concerted activity, even when the complaint involves perceived unfairness toward a coworker rather than the complaining employee herself
• An employer who offers a false or pretextual reason for termination automatically fails the Wright Line test and cannot argue the discharge would have occurred anyway
• Questioning employees about who participated in wage discussions, without providing assurances against reprisal, violates the Act regardless of whether adverse action ultimately follows
• NLRB remedies include reinstatement, backpay, and policy rescission; the Board has no authority to impose fines or financial penalties on employers

Source Information

Primary Source Author: Arthur J. Amchan, Administrative Law Judge

Primary Source: Wrightsville Firewater LLC d/b/a John Wright Restaurant and Mackenzie Caterbone, Case No. 05-CA-331875, JD-21-26 (NLRB Div. of Judges, Apr. 21, 2026)

Primary Source Link: https://www.nlrb.gov/case/05-CA-331875

Supplemental Sources

• Your Right to Discuss Wages, NLRB
• Section 7 & Section 8(a)(1): Interfering with Employee Rights, NLRB
• National Labor Relations Act (Full Text), NLRB
• NLRB Decision Clarifies Wright Line Burden in Mixed Motive Cases, Duane Morris LLP
• NLRB Expands Scope of Protected Concerted Activity, Labor & Employment Law Blog
• Can Employees Discuss Pay and Salaries?, GovDocs
• Key NLRB Developments in 2025 and What to Look for in 2026, Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchel LLP
• Protected Concerted Activity, Wikipedia