§

Brown & Root, Inc.

334 N.L.R.B. 628 (N.L.R.B. 2001)
Brown & Root, Inc.

24 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. Fall River Dyeing & Finishing Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    482 U.S. 27 (1987)   Cited 372 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the new employer must bargain with the old union, if the new employer is a true successor, and discussing factors

  3. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Burns International Security Services, Inc.

    406 U.S. 272 (1972)   Cited 480 times   50 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a successor is not bound to substantive terms of previous collective bargaining agreement

  4. WSB Electric, Inc. v. Curry

    519 U.S. 1109 (1997)   Cited 152 times
    Explaining the distinction between medical judgment and deliberate mistreatment

  5. Softel, Inc. v. Dragon Med. Scientific Comm

    523 U.S. 1020 (1998)   Cited 121 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding prejudicial the potential inclusion of evidence that would have "redrawn the boundaries of the case"

  6. Zimomra v. Alamo Rent-A-Car

    522 U.S. 948 (1997)   Cited 104 times
    Holding that active supervision unnecessary where challenged ordinance left defendants, car rental companies at Denver International Airport, virtually no discretionary authority in setting and collecting usage fees from their customers because usage fee determined by detailed formula

  7. Caine v. Hardy

    503 U.S. 936 (1992)   Cited 103 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Explaining the Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 68 L.Ed.2d 420 / Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 doctrine

  8. 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

  9. U.S. Marine Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    944 F.2d 1305 (7th Cir. 1990)   Cited 49 times

    Nos. 89-2051, 89-2140 and 89-2152. Argued December 5, 1989. Decided October 18, 1990. Reheard En Banc June 11, 1991. Decided September 25, 1991. Fred G. Groiss, Quarles Brady, Milwaukee, Wis., James D. Holzhauer (argued), Mayer, Brown Platt, Chicago, Ill., for petitioners/cross-respondents. Kenneth R. Loebel (argued), Previant, Goldberg, Uelman, Gratz, Miller Brueggeman, Milwaukee, Wis., for intervening respondent, petioner. Steven B. Goldstein, Contempt Litigation Branch, Washington, D.C., Fred

  10. Kallmann v. N.L.R.B

    640 F.2d 1094 (9th Cir. 1981)   Cited 64 times
    Holding that an employer could not be compelled to pay a greater amount of back-pay than the amount the employer would have paid its employees in the absence of the unfair labor practice