EvilCorporations.com | Corporate Accountability Project | Labor Rights Edition
Labor Retaliation
● HIGH SEVERITY CONFIRMED
Harvard Maintenance Fired a Janitor for Filing Union Complaints. A Federal Court Confirmed It Was Illegal.
A New York janitorial contractor threatened, suspended, and terminated a 18-year employee within 24 hours of her raising workplace grievances. The Fifth Circuit upheld the NLRB’s finding of unlawful retaliation in February 2026.
TL;DR
Harvard Maintenance, a New York City janitorial contractor, threatened a cleaner named Carina Cruz with suspension and “unspecified reprisal” the moment she said she would file a complaint with her union and the NLRB. Within 24 hours of Cruz raising collective workplace concerns at two meetings, the company suspended and then ultimately fired her, despite her having a clean disciplinary record across 18 years of employment. Other employees with worse conduct, including those accused of sexual harassment and physical aggression, received only warnings. The NLRB found the termination was driven by Cruz’s protected union activity. The Fifth Circuit agreed.
Workers have a legal right to raise complaints and organize without fear of retaliation. Harvard Maintenance violated that right. Hold them accountable.
18
Years Cruz worked at the company without a single disciplinary incident
<24h
Hours between Cruz’s union grievances and her suspension
90+
Workplace conversations Cruz recorded documenting company conduct
2026
Year the Fifth Circuit confirmed the retaliation was unlawful
⚠ Core Allegations
Core Allegations: What Harvard Maintenance Did
What they did · 6 points
| 01 | Supervisor Juliana Perdoda explicitly warned Cruz that filing a complaint with the union or the NLRB could result in Cruz being “suspended or getting a warning,” a direct threat against federally protected activity under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. | high |
| 02 | VP of Operations Murat Mela told Cruz not to return to work “until after the coronavirus” if she kept insisting on expressing her opinions about workplace conditions, effectively threatening her livelihood as punishment for protected speech. | high |
| 03 | Manager Blerina Alajbegu told Cruz to stop “interfering” while Cruz was speaking with a coworker about that coworker’s own workplace concerns. The NLRB found this constituted a coercive threat designed to suppress protected concerted activity. | high |
| 04 | Cruz was suspended and then terminated within 24 hours of raising collective grievances about shift lengths at a March 18, 2020, pre-shift meeting, a timing the ALJ found was not coincidental. | high |
| 05 | The company claimed Cruz used profanity and caused disruptions, justifying her firing. Audio recordings of the meetings, which Cruz herself had made, contradicted these claims. The recordings contained no profanity. | med |
| 06 | The company conducted little to no investigation before firing Cruz, a fact noted by the ALJ as evidence of discriminatory animus. Standard procedure was bypassed specifically in her case. | high |
Worker Exploitation: Who Was Harmed and How
Labor abuses · 5 points
| 01 | Cruz had worked for Harvard Maintenance for 18 years without a single misconduct incident. Her termination came not from anything she did wrong, but from exercising her legal right to raise workplace concerns collectively. | high |
| 02 | Employees who committed far more serious infractions, including one cited for sexual harassment and another who “flung” a check and became “loud and obnoxious” in front of a client, received warnings or brief suspensions. Cruz received termination. | high |
| 03 | Cruz’s complaints were about collective conditions, including the length of shifts and the adequacy of protective gloves. These are textbook examples of protected concerted activity. Harvard Maintenance treated them as fireable offenses. | med |
| 04 | The threat on the January 3, 2020 phone call, that filing with the union or the NLRB could result in suspension, was designed to chill Cruz’s rights and, by extension, the rights of any other worker who witnessed the consequences of her speaking up. | high |
| 05 | The company argued it fired Cruz for insubordination and disruption. The NLRB rejected that explanation, finding it was a pretext. Cruz was fired for organizing, not for misconduct. | high |
Corporate Accountability Failures
Weak penalties, no executive liability · 4 points
| 01 | Despite the Fifth Circuit upholding findings of coercive statements and unlawful discharge, the court also vacated the portion of the NLRB’s order awarding Cruz consequential damages, including potential compensation for credit card debt, mortgage payments, and increased transportation costs she may have incurred after losing her job. | high |
| 02 | No individual manager, supervisor, or executive at Harvard Maintenance faced personal legal consequences. The company itself contested the findings through the full federal appellate process, prolonging the case from 2020 to 2026. | high |
| 03 | The NLRB’s attempt to award “make-whole” consequential damages, covering the real-world financial harm workers suffer when wrongfully fired, was struck down by the court on statutory grounds. This limits what the Board can do to fully compensate workers in future cases. | med |
| 04 | Harvard Maintenance argued that ALJs and the NLRB are unconstitutionally structured and should be stripped of authority, a strategy increasingly used by corporations to attack the legitimacy of labor enforcement agencies rather than defend the merits of their own conduct. | med |
Regulatory and Legal Context: How the System Responded
Oversight and enforcement · 4 points
| 01 | The NLRB’s Administrative Law Judge found Harvard Maintenance guilty of unlawful threats, unlawful suspension, and unlawful termination. The full NLRB Board adopted that order. Harvard Maintenance then petitioned the Fifth Circuit, one of the most employer-friendly federal courts in the country, and still lost on the core violations. | med |
| 02 | The NLRB had attempted to expand worker remedies through its “Thryv” make-whole remedy, which would have compensated Cruz for consequential financial harms beyond back pay. The Fifth Circuit vacated this portion, citing statutory limits, continuing a trend of courts narrowing the NLRB’s enforcement tools. | high |
| 03 | The ruling in this case deepens a circuit split on the scope of NLRB remedies. The Ninth Circuit has upheld broader make-whole damages; the Fifth Circuit has now twice rejected them. The Supreme Court may eventually need to resolve the conflict. | med |
| 04 | Cruz filed her initial complaint in 2020. The final federal appellate ruling came in February 2026. Six years of legal proceedings for a janitor who raised concerns about shift lengths and protective gloves. This is the cost of exercising labor rights in America. | high |
⌛ Timeline of Events
January 3, 2020
Cruz complains at a staff meeting that Harvard Maintenance is assigning cleaners to clean microwaves and refrigerators in violation of the collective bargaining agreement. That evening, supervisor Perdoda warns Cruz over the phone that filing a complaint with the union or the NLRB could result in suspension or a warning.
March 18, 2020
Cruz attends a pre-shift meeting and raises collective concerns about employee shift lengths. She is sent home. Audio recordings later confirm her account and contradict the company’s claim that she used profanity or caused a disruption.
March 19, 2020
Cruz returns to work. VP of Operations Murat Mela tells Cruz not to come back “until after the coronavirus” if she keeps expressing her opinions. Cruz then speaks with a coworker about that coworker’s workplace concerns. Manager Alajbegu tells Cruz to stop “interfering” and sends her home. Her suspension begins.
June 2020
Harvard Maintenance converts Cruz’s suspension into a termination, ending her 18-year career with the company.
2022
An NLRB Administrative Law Judge rules that Harvard Maintenance unlawfully threatened, suspended, and terminated Cruz. The ALJ orders backpay, job-search expense reimbursement, and consequential damages for direct and foreseeable pecuniary harms. The full NLRB Board adopts the order.
February 2, 2026
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upholds the findings of coercive statements and unlawful termination but vacates the consequential damages portion of the remedy. Cruz is confirmed to have been illegally fired, but the financial compensation available to her is reduced.
💬 Direct Quotes from the Legal Record
QUOTE 1
The threat that started it all
Core Allegations
“You’re free to do it but I just want to warn you to be careful, you might end up being suspended or getting warning.”
💡 Supervisor Perdoda’s words to Cruz after Cruz said she would file a complaint with the union and the NLRB. This is textbook retaliation: a direct threat against a federally protected right, delivered by management before Cruz had done anything wrong.
QUOTE 2
VP tells Cruz to stay home if she keeps speaking up
Worker Exploitation
“Do not come back until the Coronavirus is done” if she kept insisting on exercising the “right to express my opinions.”
💡 VP of Operations Murat Mela effectively told Cruz her job was conditional on silence. Using a pandemic as cover, management framed her legal right to raise workplace concerns as grounds for exclusion from work.
QUOTE 3
Manager signals the VP’s warning still stands
Core Allegations
“I thought Noah was clear with you. If you’re going to continue interfering, I’m gonna need you to go home.”
💡 Manager Alajbegu’s words to Cruz on March 19. The court found Cruz could reasonably interpret “interfering” as code for her protected union activity, and “go home” as a threat of further discipline. The VP’s earlier warning amplified the coercive weight of these words.
QUOTE 4
The court on the timing of Cruz’s firing
Corporate Accountability
The ALJ cited “the timing of [the company’s] decision,” which was “within 24 hours of the [March 18 and 19 protected] conduct here.”
💡 The speed of the retaliation is one of the clearest signals of motive. Less than a day after raising collective concerns, Cruz was punished. The court found this timing compelling evidence that the company acted against her because of her union activity, not her conduct.
QUOTE 5
Cruz asserts her legal rights in the moment
Worker Exploitation
“I will report you.”
💡 Cruz said this to supervisor Perdoda at the March 18 meeting after raising shift-length concerns. Perdoda’s response was to tell Cruz to go home. The court found this statement was protected activity: an employee signaling intent to use formal labor complaint channels, which employers cannot lawfully punish.
QUOTE 6
The court on what Cruz was actually fired for
Core Allegations
“Managers had threatened Cruz with a suspension or warning during previous times when she had engaged in protected activity, so the ALJ was reasonable to find that they were motivated by that activity when they finally fired her.”
💡 The Fifth Circuit confirmed a direct causal chain: the same supervisors who had previously threatened Cruz for union activity were the ones who fired her. The pattern of conduct, not a single incident, established the company’s unlawful motive.
QUOTE 7
The NLRB on what consequential damages would have covered
Accountability Failures
The Board believes it is permitted to award money damages for “interest and late fees on credit cards,” “penalties if she must make early withdrawals from her retirement account,” the loss of “her car or her home[] if she is unable to make loan or mortgage payments,” “increased transportation or childcare costs,” “medical expenses, [and] credit card debt.”
💡 This is what a wrongful termination actually costs a working-class person. The NLRB tried to hold Harvard Maintenance accountable for these real-world consequences. The Fifth Circuit vacated that portion of the order, leaving those harms uncompensated.
QUOTE 8
Cruz’s record speaks for itself
Worker Exploitation
“The ALJ asserted, and the company does not dispute, that Cruz had no history of misconduct in the 18 years she worked there.”
💡 The company could not point to a single prior disciplinary incident in nearly two decades of employment to justify firing Cruz. The termination was not about her conduct. It was about silencing her voice.
💬 Commentary
Why does this case matter if Cruz technically won?
Cruz won on the most important questions: yes, she was illegally threatened; yes, she was illegally fired. But the remedy is incomplete. The court vacated the portion of the order that would have compensated her for the real financial consequences of losing her job, things like missed mortgage payments, credit card debt, and retirement penalties. For a janitor living paycheck to paycheck, back pay alone does not undo the cascading harm of sudden job loss. The victory is real, but the accountability is partial. That gap between legal vindication and full justice is exactly how corporations survive misconduct with minimal cost.
Was the lawsuit legitimate, or was Cruz a disruptive employee?
The legal record is unambiguous. Cruz had no disciplinary history across 18 years. Audio recordings she made of the disputed meetings directly contradicted the company’s claims about profanity and disruption. Employees who yelled at supervisors, committed sexual harassment, and caused scenes in front of clients received warnings. Cruz raised concerns about shift lengths and was fired. The company’s “disruption” narrative was rejected by the ALJ, the full NLRB Board, and ultimately the Fifth Circuit, which is not a court known for siding with workers or labor regulators.
What is the “Thryv remedy” and why does it matter that it was vacated?
In 2022, the NLRB adopted a new remedy requiring employers who violate labor law to compensate workers for the full scope of foreseeable financial harm caused by an unlawful termination: late fees, medical bills, lost housing, depleted retirement savings. It was named after the Thryv, Inc. case. For low-wage workers like janitors, this is the difference between a meaningful remedy and a symbolic one. The Fifth Circuit struck it down, ruling the NLRB only has authority to award equitable relief, not compensatory damages. This limits the Board’s ability to make workers whole in future cases across the states covered by the Fifth Circuit, which includes Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.
What does this tell us about how companies treat low-wage workers who organize?
Harvard Maintenance’s playbook is not unusual: threaten, document pretextual misconduct, fire, and then fight the NLRB through every available legal process. The case stretched from 2020 to 2026. Six years is an enormous burden for an individual worker to sustain. It is a manageable legal expense for a corporate janitorial contractor. The asymmetry is the point. Corporations know that the cost of fighting NLRB charges, even losing ones, is often lower than the cost of allowing workers to organize freely. Until penalties are high enough to change that calculus, retaliation will remain rational corporate behavior.
What can I do to prevent this from happening again?
Know your rights under the National Labor Relations Act: you have the legal right to discuss wages, working conditions, and workplace concerns with coworkers, and your employer cannot retaliate against you for doing so. If you witness or experience retaliation, file a charge with the NLRB at nlrb.gov. Support legislative efforts to expand NLRB enforcement authority, including proposals to increase penalties for repeat violators. Back organizations like the National Employment Law Project and Jobs With Justice that fight for stronger labor protections. And if you work in a non-union environment, consider contacting a union organizer in your industry. Collective bargaining is one of the most effective tools for preventing exactly this kind of misconduct.
Did the company face any real consequences?
Harvard Maintenance was ordered to reinstate Cruz and pay her back wages and job-search expenses. Those are real consequences. But no individual manager was held personally liable. The company is still operating. The supervisors and executives who coordinated the threats and the termination faced no personal legal or financial accountability. And the consequential damages, the part of the remedy that would have most directly punished the company for the real harm it caused, was vacated. The reputational cost of this ruling is arguably greater than the financial one.
You can click on this link to visit the NLRB’s page on Harvard Maintenance 42523: https://www.nlrb.gov/case/07-CA-379442
💡 Explore Corporate Misconduct by Category
Corporations harm people every day — from wage theft to pollution. Learn more by exploring key areas of injustice.
- 💀 Product Safety Violations — When companies risk lives for profit.
- 🌿 Environmental Violations — Pollution, ecological collapse, and unchecked greed.
- 💼 Labor Exploitation — Wage theft, worker abuse, and unsafe conditions.
- 🛡️ Data Breaches & Privacy Abuses — Misuse and mishandling of personal information.
- 💵 Financial Fraud & Corruption — Lies, scams, and executive impunity.
