Design Technology Group LLC dba Bettie Page Clothing

10 Cited authorities

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Transportation Management Corp.
462 U.S. 393 (1983) Cited 655 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."
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
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
Guardsmark, LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
475 F.3d 369 (D.C. Cir. 2007) Cited 17 times 2 Legal Analyses
Striking down rule that only allowed employees to complain internally
N.L.R.B. v. Interboro Contractors, Inc.
388 F.2d 495 (2d Cir. 1967) Cited 80 times 1 Legal Analyses
In NLRB v. Interboro Contractors, Inc., 388 F.2d 495, 500 (2d Cir. 1967), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stated that the efforts of an individual employee acting alone to enforce the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement may be deemed "concerted," and thus protected, at least when the individual's interpretation of the agreement has a reasonable basis.
Dreis Krump Mfg. Co., Inc. v. N.L.R.B
544 F.2d 320 (7th Cir. 1976) Cited 48 times 1 Legal Analyses
Upholding Board's refusal to defer on ground that award would violate employee's § 7 rights.
Prill v. N.L.R.B
835 F.2d 1481 (D.C. Cir. 1987) Cited 27 times 8 Legal Analyses
Recognizing that an employee takes concerted action “when he acts with the actual participation or on the authority of his co-workers”
Pergament United Sales, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
920 F.2d 130 (2d Cir. 1990) Cited 20 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that "due process is satisfied when a complaint gives a respondent fair notice . . . and when the conduct implicated in the alleged violation has been fully and fairly litigated"
Trompler, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
338 F.3d 747 (7th Cir. 2003) Cited 7 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Trompler, an employer fired six employees who walked off a shift because their shift supervisor "failed to prevent sexual harassment of one of the six workers by another [who had not joined the walkout]," "failed to deal competently with a worker's drug problem," and "didn't know how to operate the machines used by the workers."
Western Exterminator Co. v. N.L.R.B
565 F.2d 1114 (9th Cir. 1977) Cited 25 times
In Western Exterminator v. NLRB, 565 F.2d 1114 (9th Cir. 1977), this Court held that a discriminatory motive must be the dominant or moving cause of a discharge.

Design Technology Group LLC dba Bettie Page Clothing

10 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."

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

Striking down rule that only allowed employees to complain internally

Upholding Board's refusal to defer on ground that award would violate employee's § 7 rights.

Recognizing that an employee takes concerted action “when he acts with the actual participation or on the authority of his co-workers”

Holding that "due process is satisfied when a complaint gives a respondent fair notice . . . and when the conduct implicated in the alleged violation has been fully and fairly litigated"

In Western Exterminator v. NLRB, 565 F.2d 1114 (9th Cir. 1977), this Court held that a discriminatory motive must be the dominant or moving cause of a discharge.