Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.

16 Cited authorities

Faragher v. Boca Raton
524 U.S. 775 (1998) Cited 9,518 times 101 Legal Analyses
Holding that, to be actionable, the alleged conduct "must be extreme" and "the sporadic use of abusive language, gender-related jokes, and occasional teasing" are not enough
Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth
524 U.S. 742 (1998) Cited 7,256 times 93 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employer is not liable for a hostile work environment created by one of its employees when "the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and . . . the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise"
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."
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. City Disposal Systems, Inc.
465 U.S. 822 (1984) Cited 206 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that a "lone employee's invocation of a right grounded in his collective-bargaining agreement is . . . a concerted activity in a very real sense" because the employee is in effect reminding his employer of the power of the group that brought about the agreement and that could be reharnessed if the employer refuses to respect the employee's objection
Eastex, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
437 U.S. 556 (1978) Cited 196 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that a newsletter that "urg[ed] employees to write their legislators to oppose incorporation of the state 'right-to-work' statute into a revised state constitution," "criticiz[ed] a Presidential veto of an increase in the federal minimum wage and urg[ed] employees to register to vote" was protected concerted activity
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 106 times 6 Legal Analyses
Upholding conclusion that employees classified as department managers did not meet executive exemption
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
Barrett v. Applied Radiant Energy Corp.
240 F.3d 262 (4th Cir. 2001) Cited 137 times
Holding that "[w]here the hostile work environment is predicated on the abusive behaviors of coworkers, employer liability can only attach where the complaining employee has complained directly to the employer and the employer has failed to adequately respond."
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.

Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.

16 Cited authorities

Holding that, to be actionable, the alleged conduct "must be extreme" and "the sporadic use of abusive language, gender-related jokes, and occasional teasing" are not enough

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."

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

Holding that "[w]here the hostile work environment is predicated on the abusive behaviors of coworkers, employer liability can only attach where the complaining employee has complained directly to the employer and the employer has failed to adequately respond."

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.