Skip to main content

The NLRB public website is scheduled to undergo routine maintenance from Friday, November 21, 2025, at 11:00 PM ET (8:00 PM PT) until Monday, November 24, 2025, at 6:00 AM ET. From Friday night at 11:00 pm ET through Saturday morning at about 9:00 am ET, E-Filing will not be available. From Saturday through Monday morning, the E-Filing applications (E-Filing, Online Charge and Petition, and My Account Portal) may be periodically unavailable. We apologize for any inconvenience.
The NLRB reopened from shutdown status on November 13, 2025. Due dates to file or serve most documents were tolled during the period of the shutdown, although due dates cannot be tolled for filing and service of unfair labor practice charges, applications for awards of fees and other expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act, and certain representation petitions. For documents where tolling applies, the terms are that for each day on which the Agency’s offices were closed for all or any portion of the day, one day is added to the time for filing or service of the document. If the new due date falls on a weekend or holiday, the new due date will be moved to the next business day. For example, if the original due date was October 7, 2025 and the shutdown lasted 43 days, the revised due date is November 19, 2025. See chart for revised due dates.

Breadcrumb

  1. Home

News & Publications

Newspapers

Board Decides King Soopers, Revises Treatment of Search-for-Work Expenses

Office of Public Affairs

202-273-1991

publicinfo@nlrb.gov

www.nlrb.gov

Washington, D.C. — In a 3-1 decision, the National Labor Relations Board found in King Soopers that the Agency’s current backpay formula was inadequate to fulfill its fundamental charge to make victims whole following an unlawful termination. As such, the decision revised how the Agency will treat reasonable search-for-work and interim employment expenses, which prior to today’s decision could result in less than make-whole relief for discriminatees. Employees will now be compensated for such expenses even when interim earnings are nonexistent or less than those expenses.
Under Board law, discriminatees have a duty to mitigate losses due to their unlawful discharge, which generally means securing and maintaining interim employment. In the course of seeking new employment, discriminatees often face significant additional expenses such as transportation, room and board, and/or relocation costs.
Previously, the Board has treated these expenses as offsets to interim earnings, rather than as a separate component of the make-whole remedy. Prior to today, those who were unable to find interim employment received no reimbursement for their reasonable search-for-work and interim expenses. In addition, individuals whose interim earnings were less than these expenses would not have been fully compensated for their losses since such payments could not exceed interim earnings. The decision provides the following example to demonstrate the shortcomings of the prior approach:
Juana Perez worked at a remote location earning $1,000 per month prior to her unlawful discharge. During the month following her discharge, Perez spent $500 travelling to different locations looking for work. Perez could only find interim employment in another state that paid $750 per month. Perez moved to the new state to be closer to her new job and was also required to obtain training for her new position, costing her $5,000 and $500, respectively. Under the Board’s traditional approach, Perez would receive compensation for only $1,500 of her $6,000 total expenses, far less than make-whole relief. 
The Board affirmed the Administrative Law Judge’s findings in the case but amended the remedy to reflect the new approach for awarding search-for-work and interim expenses. The Board ordered King Soopers to compensate the discriminatee for her search-for-work and interim-expenses regardless of whether those expenses exceed her interim earnings.
Chairman Mark Gaston Pearce was joined by Members Kent Y. Hirozawa and Lauren McFerran in the majority opinion. Member Philip A. Miscimarra dissented in part and concurred in part.