## Facts

- A federal building in Brooklyn was serviced by Prompt Maintenance Services, whose employees were represented by SEIU Local 32B‑32J under a collective-bargaining agreement.
- The General Services Administration rebid the cleaning contract and awarded it to Laro Maintenance Corporation, effective October 1, 1990.
- The bid solicitation required the successor contractor to pay the same wages as the prior contractor and to staff at least 50% of the initial workforce with “experienced cleaners.”
- Before hiring, Laro’s president toured the building, learned the government had taken deductions from the prior contractor’s contract payments, and observed two employees sleeping.
- Laro’s president stated to the building manager that Laro did not intend to hire any of the predecessor’s employees based on the deductions and the sleeping incident.
- Laro ultimately hired 10 former predecessor employees but refused to interview or hire 13 other predecessor employees who applied; the rejected applicants were members of Local 32B‑32J.
- The NLRB, adopting an ALJ’s findings, concluded the refusals were motivated by anti-union animus and ordered Laro to offer jobs and provide make-whole relief.
- On review, only the refusal-to-hire discrimination finding under NLRA §§ 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) was at issue.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the NLRB’s finding that Laro violated NLRA §§ 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) by refusing to hire 13 applicants because of their union membership.
2. Whether the NLRB applied an improper presumption of discriminatory motive based solely on Laro’s knowledge of union affiliation and its failure to hire the applicants.

## Decision

- The court denied Laro’s petition for review and granted the NLRB’s cross-petition for enforcement.
- The court held the NLRB applied the correct refusal-to-hire discrimination framework and permissibly inferred unlawful motive from the totality of circumstances.
- The court found substantial evidence supported that Laro’s refusals to hire were motivated, at least in part, by anti-union animus rather than legitimate performance concerns.
- The court deferred to the ALJ’s credibility determinations, finding no basis to reject them.
- The enforced remedy required Laro to offer employment and provide make-whole relief to the affected applicants.

## Legal Principles

- A refusal to hire violates NLRA §§ 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) where the evidence supports that protected union activity was a motivating factor in the hiring decision.
- The Board may infer discriminatory motive from circumstantial evidence, including broad statements disfavoring a unionized workforce, failure to investigate asserted performance concerns, inconsistent explanations, and comparative hiring of less qualified non-union workers.
- Knowledge of union affiliation plus non-hire does not, by itself, establish an unlawful refusal to hire; the finding must rest on record evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the full context.
- Reviewing courts uphold Board-supported credibility determinations and factual inferences if supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit enforced the NLRB’s order after concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that the successor contractor unlawfully refused to hire 13 predecessor employees because of their union membership, and that the Board’s decision rested on permissible inferences from the full record rather than an automatic presumption of discrimination.


Laro Maint. Corp. v. NLRB, 56 F.3d 224 (D.C. Cir. 1995)