Aztech Electric Co.

36 Cited authorities

Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody
422 U.S. 405 (1975) Cited 2,630 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employment policy cannot stand if another policy, "without a similarly undesirable racial effect, would also serve the employer's legitimate interest"
Griggs v. Duke Power Co.
401 U.S. 424 (1971) Cited 2,779 times 35 Legal Analyses
Holding that § 703(h) does not protect use of testing requirements with a disparate impact on racial minorities where the tests were not shown to be related to job performance
Bill Johnson's Restaurants, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
461 U.S. 731 (1983) Cited 978 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that the NLRB could not bar an employer from pursuing a well-grounded lawsuit for damages under state law
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."
Dothard v. Rawlinson
433 U.S. 321 (1977) Cited 793 times
Holding impermissible minimum statutory height and weight requirements for correctional counselors
Connecticut v. Teal
457 U.S. 440 (1982) Cited 538 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that a pass-fail threshold test for promotions, which had a disparate impact on African-Americans, could meet the plaintiffs' prima facie burden
Metropolitan Edison Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
460 U.S. 693 (1983) Cited 311 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that a union may, under certain circumstances, waive members' NLRA rights
Labor Board v. Brown
380 U.S. 278 (1965) Cited 473 times 2 Legal Analyses
Approving finding of § 8 violation when "employers' conduct is demonstrably so destructive of employee rights and so devoid of significant service to any legitimate business end that it cannot be tolerated consistently with the Act"
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Labor Board
313 U.S. 177 (1941) Cited 871 times
Holding that the NLRA limits the Board's backpay authority to restoring “actual losses”
Connell Co. v. Plumbers Steamfitters
421 U.S. 616 (1975) Cited 285 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that an agreement between a union and a nonlabor party, which is wholly-unrelated to any collective-bargaining effort on the part of the union and which operates or threatens to operate as a restraint on trade, may be the basis for a federal antitrust suit

Aztech Electric Co.

36 Cited authorities

Holding that an employment policy cannot stand if another policy, "without a similarly undesirable racial effect, would also serve the employer's legitimate interest"

Holding that § 703(h) does not protect use of testing requirements with a disparate impact on racial minorities where the tests were not shown to be related to job performance

Holding that the NLRB could not bar an employer from pursuing a well-grounded lawsuit for damages under state law

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 impermissible minimum statutory height and weight requirements for correctional counselors

Holding that a pass-fail threshold test for promotions, which had a disparate impact on African-Americans, could meet the plaintiffs' prima facie burden

Holding that a union may, under certain circumstances, waive members' NLRA rights

Approving finding of § 8 violation when "employers' conduct is demonstrably so destructive of employee rights and so devoid of significant service to any legitimate business end that it cannot be tolerated consistently with the Act"

Holding that the NLRA limits the Board's backpay authority to restoring “actual losses”

Holding that an agreement between a union and a nonlabor party, which is wholly-unrelated to any collective-bargaining effort on the part of the union and which operates or threatens to operate as a restraint on trade, may be the basis for a federal antitrust suit