Champion Home Builders Co.

15 Cited authorities

San Diego Unions v. Garmon
359 U.S. 236 (1959) Cited 2,558 times 33 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the States as well as the federal court must defer to the exclusive competence of the National Labor Relations Board" if "an activity is arguably subject to § 7 or § 8 of the [NLRA]"
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."
Farmer v. Carpenters
430 U.S. 290 (1977) Cited 607 times
Holding that an otherwise preempted claim could be prosecuted in state or federal court if the conduct alleged was sufficiently outrageous
Sears, Roebuck Co. v. Carpenters
436 U.S. 180 (1978) Cited 554 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that both state and federal courts must defer to the National Labor Relations Board when an activity is arguably protected under § 7 or prohibited by § 8 of the NLRA
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"
Romano v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith
487 U.S. 1205 (1988) Cited 105 times 6 Legal Analyses
Upholding conclusion that employees classified as department managers did not meet executive exemption
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
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
Youngdahl v. Rainfair, Inc.
355 U.S. 131 (1957) Cited 180 times
Upholding state court injunction against violent picketing

Champion Home Builders Co.

15 Cited authorities

Holding that "the States as well as the federal court must defer to the exclusive competence of the National Labor Relations Board" if "an activity is arguably subject to § 7 or § 8 of the [NLRA]"

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 that an otherwise preempted claim could be prosecuted in state or federal court if the conduct alleged was sufficiently outrageous

Holding that both state and federal courts must defer to the National Labor Relations Board when an activity is arguably protected under § 7 or prohibited by § 8 of the NLRA

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 conclusion that employees classified as department managers did not meet executive exemption

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

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

Upholding state court injunction against violent picketing