Katch Kan USA, L.L.C. v. NLRB, No. 15-60588 (5th Cir. 2016)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-60588 Document: 00513658174 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/30/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-60588 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August 30, 2016 KATCH KAN USA, L.L.C. Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Petitioner/Cross-Respondent, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent/Cross-Petitioner. On Petition for Review and Cross-Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board NLRB No. 16-CA-134743 Before KING, SMITH, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Katch Kan USA, L.L.C. seeks review of a National Labor Relations Board order finding that it engaged in an unfair labor practice when it fired Tanner Siems. Katch Kan maintains that it terminated Siems because he refused an assignment to Saudi Arabia. The Board, however, adopted the finding of an administrative law judge who concluded that the termination was retaliation for Siems’s engaging in protected activity just eleven days before he Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 15-60588 Document: 00513658174 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/30/2016 No. 15-60588 was fired. The protected activity involved participation in a work stoppage that protested a significant change in Katch Kan’s compensation system. The standard of review decides the outcome of this appeal. We must enforce the Board’s order so long as it is supported by substantial evidence, which we have described as evidence that is “relevant and sufficient for a reasonable mind to accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” El Paso Elec. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 681 F.3d 651, 656–57 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Having reviewed the record, briefs, and arguments of counsel, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s order. Katch Kan’s petition is DENIED. The Board’s order is ENFORCED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.