Boydston Electric, Inc.

22 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."
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
Missouri Housing Development Com'n v. Brice
919 F.2d 1306 (8th Cir. 1990) Cited 177 times
Holding earlier judicial admissions binding even after admitting party later produced evidence at summary judgment contrary to the admissions
Davis v. A.G. Edwards and Sons, Inc.
823 F.2d 105 (5th Cir. 1987) Cited 120 times
Holding earlier judicial admissions binding, even though admitting party submitted an affidavit at summary judgment that conflicted with earlier statements in his complaint
Southwest Merchandising Corp. v. N.L.R.B
53 F.3d 1334 (D.C. Cir. 1995) Cited 38 times
Holding that the jury could infer pretext and unlawful discrimination from an employer's shifting and inconsistent explanations for its action
United Steelworkers v. N.L.R.B
983 F.2d 240 (D.C. Cir. 1993) Cited 39 times
Holding that factual findings may be reversed only when the record is so compelling that no reasonable fact-finder could fail to find the contrary
Bourne v. N.L.R.B
332 F.2d 47 (2d Cir. 1964) Cited 93 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Bourne, we held that interrogation which does not contain express threats is not an unfair labor practice unless certain "fairly severe standards" are met showing that the very fact of interrogation was coercive.
Pirelli Cable Corp. v. National Labor rel
141 F.3d 503 (4th Cir. 1998) Cited 20 times
Holding that an employer may overcome an unfair labor practice charge if it can show that the employee would have been discharged in the absence of union activity
California Acrylic Industries, Inc. v. NLRB
150 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 1998) Cited 17 times
Holding that surveillance can constitute "interference" in violation of the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"), which prohibits "interfer[ing] with, restrain[ing], or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed" by the Act
Federal-Mogul Corp. v. N.L.R.B
566 F.2d 1245 (5th Cir. 1978) Cited 40 times
Finding isolated statements made by low-echelon foremen and supervisors who were friends of the employees non-coercive where statements were made in friendly conversations

Boydston Electric, Inc.

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

Holding earlier judicial admissions binding even after admitting party later produced evidence at summary judgment contrary to the admissions

Holding earlier judicial admissions binding, even though admitting party submitted an affidavit at summary judgment that conflicted with earlier statements in his complaint

Holding that the jury could infer pretext and unlawful discrimination from an employer's shifting and inconsistent explanations for its action

Holding that factual findings may be reversed only when the record is so compelling that no reasonable fact-finder could fail to find the contrary

In Bourne, we held that interrogation which does not contain express threats is not an unfair labor practice unless certain "fairly severe standards" are met showing that the very fact of interrogation was coercive.

Holding that an employer may overcome an unfair labor practice charge if it can show that the employee would have been discharged in the absence of union activity

Holding that surveillance can constitute "interference" in violation of the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"), which prohibits "interfer[ing] with, restrain[ing], or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed" by the Act

Finding isolated statements made by low-echelon foremen and supervisors who were friends of the employees non-coercive where statements were made in friendly conversations