(Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Friday largely rejected Starbucks' ( SBUX ) appeal of a National Labor Relations Board finding the coffee chain illegally fired two Philadelphia baristas because they wanted to organize a union.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Starbucks ( SBUX ) lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of NLRB administrative law judges, in a possible setback for companies such as Amazon.com ( AMZN ), Trader Joe's and Elon Musk's SpaceX that have sought to limit the agency's enforcement powers.

Circuit Judge Thomas Ambro wrote for a three-judge panel that substantial evidence supported the NLRB's conclusion that Starbucks ( SBUX ) engaged in unfair labor practices by firing Echo Nowakowska and Tristan Bussiere from their South Philadelphia store, and reducing Nowakowska's hours.

The court also found substantial evidence that Starbucks ( SBUX ) knew before the firings that the baristas had recorded meetings with supervisors without their consent, and rejected Starbucks' ( SBUX ) claim it need not rehire the baristas with back pay because it discovered the improper recordings only later.

But the Philadelphia-based court said the NLRB exceeded its authority by ordering Starbucks ( SBUX ) to pay the baristas' foreseeable expenses stemming from their firings. These might have included costs of finding new jobs and out-of-pocket medical expenses.

Starbucks ( SBUX ) said it fired Nowakowska in January 2020 because she performed poorly and mistreated customers and fired Bussiere the next month because he spread a false rumor that another barista would be fired.

Neither Starbucks ( SBUX ) nor its lawyers immediately responded to requests for comment. An NLRB spokesperson declined to comment.

Many Starbucks ( SBUX ) workers have accused the Seattle-based company of unfair labor practices, which it has denied, amid a campaign by workers to unionize stores nationwide.

That campaign included strikes this month at more than 300 stores, according to Starbucks Workers United.

The case was the first time a federal appeals court considered broader challenges to NLRB enforcement powers, including whether its administrative law judges were unconstitutionally shielded from presidential removal.

Ambro said Starbucks ( SBUX ) lacked standing to challenge the removal protections because it could not demonstrate harm.

The cases are NLRB v Starbucks Corp ( SBUX ), 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 23-1953; and Starbucks Corp ( SBUX ) v NLRB in the same court, No. 23-2241.