A South Carolina Nursing Home Refused to Hire a Woman Because She Was in a Union. Three Years Later, the NLRB Is Making Them Pay.

Columbia, South Carolina — A South Carolina nursing home has been ordered to offer a job to a worker it rejected nearly three years ago — and to pay her back wages for every month she was shut out — because she was a member of a union.

The ruling, issued by the National Labor Relations Board, found that the facility violated federal labor law when it refused to consider the woman’s job application due to her union involvement. The NLRB directed the nursing home to extend a formal employment offer and make her whole financially for the years she spent without the position she should have been given.

A Straightforward Violation of Federal Law

Under the National Labor Relations Act, employers are prohibited from discriminating against job applicants — or current employees — based on union membership or protected organizing activity. The South Carolina case is a textbook example of what federal regulators say shouldn’t happen: an applicant screened out not because of qualifications, but because of her labor affiliations.

The back pay obligation begins from the time the worker was wrongfully denied the job and runs until the nursing home complies with the order. In practical terms, that’s a meaningful financial exposure — roughly three years of wages the facility will now be required to cover.

The ruling also forces the operator to actively offer her the position, not simply acknowledge wrongdoing. That’s a stronger remedy than many employers face and signals the NLRB’s intent to make the worker genuinely whole, not just issue a symbolic rebuke.

A Broader Pattern in Long-Term Care

Labor relations have been a flashpoint in nursing homes for years. Union drives, contract fights, and workforce complaints have accelerated in the wake of the pandemic, with workers citing burnout, short staffing, and wages that haven’t kept pace with the demands of the job.

Facilities that push back hard against unionization — or that quietly screen out applicants with union ties — run legal risks that can take years to materialize, but often do. Federal regulators have shown a willingness to pursue these cases, even when they stretch back years.

Research has increasingly backed the case for union labor in long-term care. A recent study found that unionization and public employment both contributed to meaningfully lower staff turnover in nursing homes — one of the most costly and quality-damaging problems operators face.

What This Means for Operators

For nursing home administrators and HR teams, the South Carolina case is a reminder that hiring decisions tied to union status don’t just create bad optics — they create liability. The NLRB’s enforcement capacity has been contested in Washington, but federal labor law still puts applicant discrimination squarely in regulators’ crosshairs.

Facilities operating in right-to-work states sometimes assume labor protections carry less weight. That’s a mistake. The NLRA applies nationwide, and the NLRB’s authority to issue back-pay remedies doesn’t hinge on state labor law. If a rejected applicant can show her union status drove the decision, the facility is exposed — regardless of which state it’s in.

The South Carolina facility now joins a growing list of operators who’ve learned that lesson the hard way.