Akal Security, Inc.

12 Cited authorities

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Transportation Management Corp.
462 U.S. 393 (1983) Cited 652 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that the employer bears the burden of negating causation in a mixed-motive discrimination case, noting "[i]t is fair that [the employer] bear the risk that the influence of legal and illegal motives cannot be separated."
National Labor Rel. B. v. Kentucky R. Comm. C
532 U.S. 706 (2001) Cited 180 times 29 Legal Analyses
Holding that the burden of proving a statutory exception generally falls on the party who claims a benefit
H. K. Porter Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
397 U.S. 99 (1970) Cited 222 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the NLRB is "without power to compel a company or a union to agree to any substantive contractual provision of a collective-bargaining agreement."
Labor Bd. v. Washington Aluminum Co.
370 U.S. 9 (1962) Cited 206 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that certain employee conduct crosses the line from protected activity to "indefensible" conduct that loses NLRA protections
N.L.R.B. v. Wright Line, a Div. of Wright Line, Inc.
662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981) Cited 357 times 46 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act
Labor Board v. Burnup Sims
379 U.S. 21 (1964) Cited 106 times 21 Legal Analyses
Finding violation of § 8 "whatever the employer's motive"
Cadbury Beverages v. N.L.R.B
160 F.3d 24 (D.C. Cir. 1998) Cited 20 times
Holding that it was “not incumbent on the general counsel to prove, nor on the Board to find, that the company's asserted nondiscriminatory reason of insubordination was pretextual ... although such a showing would have served as a conclusive rejection of [the company's] affirmative defense”
Holsum de Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
456 F.3d 265 (1st Cir. 2006) Cited 3 times
Finding substantial evidence of knowledge of union activities conducted in plain view in an open parking lot where the activities "could very well have been observed by any number of supervisors and managers"
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Federal Security, Inc.
154 F.3d 751 (7th Cir. 1998) Cited 5 times 2 Legal Analyses
Noting that discretionary jurisdiction may be waived
N.L.R.B. v. Leslie Metal Arts Company, Inc.
509 F.2d 811 (6th Cir. 1975) Cited 16 times
In Leslie, however, the court went on to enforce the Board's order, which had found the walkout at issue to be protected activity.

Akal Security, Inc.

12 Cited authorities

Holding that the employer bears the burden of negating causation in a mixed-motive discrimination case, noting "[i]t is fair that [the employer] bear the risk that the influence of legal and illegal motives cannot be separated."

Holding that the burden of proving a statutory exception generally falls on the party who claims a benefit

Holding that the NLRB is "without power to compel a company or a union to agree to any substantive contractual provision of a collective-bargaining agreement."

Holding that certain employee conduct crosses the line from protected activity to "indefensible" conduct that loses NLRA protections

Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act

Finding violation of § 8 "whatever the employer's motive"

Holding that it was “not incumbent on the general counsel to prove, nor on the Board to find, that the company's asserted nondiscriminatory reason of insubordination was pretextual ... although such a showing would have served as a conclusive rejection of [the company's] affirmative defense”

Finding substantial evidence of knowledge of union activities conducted in plain view in an open parking lot where the activities "could very well have been observed by any number of supervisors and managers"

Noting that discretionary jurisdiction may be waived

In Leslie, however, the court went on to enforce the Board's order, which had found the walkout at issue to be protected activity.