§

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan

07-CA-073807 (N.L.R.B. Sep. 7, 2012)
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan

6 Cited authorities

  1. 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."

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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."

  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Caval Tool Division, Chromalloy Gas Turbine Corp.

    262 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2001)   Cited 21 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming the Board's holding that an employee engaged in concerted activity when he made statements about the company's new break policy at an employee meeting called by the employer to address the policy

  6. 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”