Amelio's

13 Cited authorities

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Transportation Management Corp.
462 U.S. 393 (1983) Cited 657 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."
Romano v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith
487 U.S. 1205 (1988) Cited 107 times 6 Legal Analyses
Upholding conclusion that employees classified as department managers did not meet executive exemption
N.L.R.B. v. Wright Line, a Div. of Wright Line, Inc.
662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981) Cited 358 times 46 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act
Prill v. N.L.R.B
755 F.2d 941 (D.C. Cir. 1985) Cited 80 times 3 Legal Analyses
In Prill v. NLRB, 755 F.2d 941, 948 (D.C. Cir. 1985), the D.C. Circuit remanded a case to the agency because "a regulation [was] based on an incorrect view of applicable law."
Prill v. N.L.R.B
835 F.2d 1481 (D.C. Cir. 1987) Cited 27 times 8 Legal Analyses
Recognizing that an employee takes concerted action “when he acts with the actual participation or on the authority of his co-workers”
N.L.R.B. v. Baja's Place
733 F.2d 416 (6th Cir. 1984) Cited 31 times
No. 83-5117. Argued and Submitted March 13, 1984. Decided May 3, 1984. Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Helen L. Morgan, Mark S. McCarty, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Ellsworth K. Hanlon, Dearborn, Mich., for respondent. Before KEITH and KRUPANSKY, Circuit Judges, and WEICK, Senior Circuit Judge. PER CURIAM. This case is before this court on the application for enforcement of an NLRB order issued against Baja's Place, Inc. on August 31, 1982. The order was predicated on
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. N.L.R.B
407 F.2d 1357 (4th Cir. 1969) Cited 38 times
Noting that, while timing is a factor, "the thrust of Exchange Parts is the condemnation of granting such benefits with the purpose of affecting the outcome of an election"
Jeannette Corp. v. N.L.R.B
532 F.2d 916 (3d Cir. 1976) Cited 25 times 2 Legal Analyses
Sustaining the Board's finding that the employer's rule broadly prohibiting wage discussions was an unfair labor practice under § 8, reasoning that "wage discussions can be protected activity and that an employer's unqualified rule barring such discussions has the tendency to inhibit such activity"
N.L.R.B. v. Challenge-Cook Bros. of Ohio, Inc.
374 F.2d 147 (6th Cir. 1967) Cited 34 times
Finding inference that supervisor who walked past a sign every day saw that sign was reasonable and provided substantial evidence for the NLRB's decision
United Aircraft Corporation v. N.L.R.B
440 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1971) Cited 21 times
Holding that because the prevailing party could have sought review of an adverse determination through cross-appeal, "the general rule that `determinations adverse to the winning litigant do not have conclusive effect as collateral estoppel' should not be applied."

Amelio's

13 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."

Upholding conclusion that employees classified as department managers did not meet executive exemption

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

In Prill v. NLRB, 755 F.2d 941, 948 (D.C. Cir. 1985), the D.C. Circuit remanded a case to the agency because "a regulation [was] based on an incorrect view of applicable law."

Recognizing that an employee takes concerted action “when he acts with the actual participation or on the authority of his co-workers”

Noting that, while timing is a factor, "the thrust of Exchange Parts is the condemnation of granting such benefits with the purpose of affecting the outcome of an election"

Finding inference that supervisor who walked past a sign every day saw that sign was reasonable and provided substantial evidence for the NLRB's decision

Holding that because the prevailing party could have sought review of an adverse determination through cross-appeal, "the general rule that `determinations adverse to the winning litigant do not have conclusive effect as collateral estoppel' should not be applied."