DMI Distribution of Delaware, Ohio

7 Cited authorities

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"
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Yeshiva University
444 U.S. 672 (1980) Cited 183 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that all faculty members are managers for purposes of federal labor law even though they lack any legal instruments of control
Labor Board v. Parts Co.
375 U.S. 405 (1964) Cited 213 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Act “prohibits not only intrusive threats and promises but also conduct immediately favorable to employees which is undertaken with the express purpose of impinging upon their freedom of choice for or against unionization and is reasonably calculated to have that effect.”
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
Perdue Farms, Inc. v. Nat. Lbr. Relations Bd.
144 F.3d 830 (D.C. Cir. 1998) Cited 28 times
Deferring to agency's resolution of contradictory evidence
Property Resources Corp. v. N.L.R.B
863 F.2d 964 (D.C. Cir. 1988) Cited 8 times
Stating that the Board "can infer from falsity of employer's stated reason for discharge that motive is unlawful" (citing Shattuck Denn Mining Corp. v. NLRB , 362 F.2d 466, 470 (9th Cir. 1966) )

DMI Distribution of Delaware, Ohio

7 Cited authorities

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Transportation Management Corp.

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.

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

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Yeshiva University

Holding that all faculty members are managers for purposes of federal labor law even though they lack any legal instruments of control

Labor Board v. Parts Co.

Holding that the Act “prohibits not only intrusive threats and promises but also conduct immediately favorable to employees which is undertaken with the express purpose of impinging upon their freedom of choice for or against unionization and is reasonably calculated to have that effect.”

N.L.R.B. v. Wright Line, a Div. of Wright Line, Inc.

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

Perdue Farms, Inc. v. Nat. Lbr. Relations Bd.

Deferring to agency's resolution of contradictory evidence

Property Resources Corp. v. N.L.R.B

Stating that the Board "can infer from falsity of employer's stated reason for discharge that motive is unlawful" (citing Shattuck Denn Mining Corp. v. NLRB , 362 F.2d 466, 470 (9th Cir. 1966) )