California Gas Transport, Inc.

38 Cited authorities

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Arabian American Oil Co.
499 U.S. 244 (1991) Cited 629 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that the presumption against extraterritorial application of federal statutes prevented an employee fired from work being done in Saudi Arabia from sustaining an anti-discrimination action brought under Title VII
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California
509 U.S. 764 (1993) Cited 570 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that allegation that defendant insurers and reinsurers told "groups of insurance brokers and agents . . . that a reinsurance boycott, and thus loss of income to the agents and brokers who would be unable to find available markets for their customers, would ensue" if the terms desired by defendants in commercial general liability insurance were not approved, was a boycott under the McCarran-Ferguson Act
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."
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co.
395 U.S. 575 (1969) Cited 1,035 times 67 Legal Analyses
Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"
F. Hofpmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran S. A.
542 U.S. 155 (2004) Cited 212 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding domestic effects exception does not apply where "price-fixing conduct significantly and adversely affects both customers outside the United States and customers within the United States, but the adverse foreign effect is independent of any adverse domestic effect"
Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd.
545 U.S. 119 (2005) Cited 125 times
Cautioning against reliance on "broad or general language"
Labor Board v. Erie Resistor Corp.
373 U.S. 221 (1963) Cited 358 times 1 Legal Analyses
Upholding Board decision prohibiting employer from granting super-seniority to strike-breakers because "[s]uper-seniority renders future bargaining difficult, if not impossible"
Labor Board v. Walton Mfg. Co.
369 U.S. 404 (1962) Cited 298 times
Explaining that the deferential standard of review is appropriate because the "[the ALJ] ... sees the witnesses and hears them testify, while the Board and the reviewing court look only at cold records"
SCM Corp. v. Advance Business Systems & Supply Co.
397 U.S. 920 (1970) Cited 200 times 5 Legal Analyses
Upholding a delay of three months where only prejudice shown was that the defendants could not recall details of the days in the distant past; no special circumstances
Labor Bd. v. Washington Aluminum Co.
370 U.S. 9 (1962) Cited 206 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that certain employee conduct crosses the line from protected activity to "indefensible" conduct that loses NLRA protections

California Gas Transport, Inc.

38 Cited authorities

Holding that the presumption against extraterritorial application of federal statutes prevented an employee fired from work being done in Saudi Arabia from sustaining an anti-discrimination action brought under Title VII

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 a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"

Holding domestic effects exception does not apply where "price-fixing conduct significantly and adversely affects both customers outside the United States and customers within the United States, but the adverse foreign effect is independent of any adverse domestic effect"

Cautioning against reliance on "broad or general language"

Upholding Board decision prohibiting employer from granting super-seniority to strike-breakers because "[s]uper-seniority renders future bargaining difficult, if not impossible"

Explaining that the deferential standard of review is appropriate because the "[the ALJ] ... sees the witnesses and hears them testify, while the Board and the reviewing court look only at cold records"

Upholding a delay of three months where only prejudice shown was that the defendants could not recall details of the days in the distant past; no special circumstances

Holding that certain employee conduct crosses the line from protected activity to "indefensible" conduct that loses NLRA protections