Equitable Gas Co.

7 Cited authorities

  1. 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."
  2. Metropolitan Edison Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    460 U.S. 693 (1983)   Cited 311 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a union may, under certain circumstances, waive members' NLRA rights
  3. 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
  4. Turnbull Cone Baking Co. v. N.L.R.B

    778 F.2d 292 (6th Cir. 1985)   Cited 51 times
    In Turnbull Cone, we unequivocally established that "[c]ircumstantial evidence alone may be sufficient" to prove a section 8(a)(3) transgression.
  5. Indianapolis Power Light Co. v. N.L.R.B

    898 F.2d 524 (7th Cir. 1990)   Cited 14 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Giving effect to a no-strike clause that had been incorporated from contract to contract for eleven years without change or renegotiation
  6. N.L.R.B. v. Southern Florida Hotel

    751 F.2d 1571 (11th Cir. 1985)   Cited 17 times

    No. 83-5452. February 8, 1985. Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate General Counsel, Barbara A. Atkin, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Joseph H. Kaplan, Kaplan, Sicking, Hessen, Sugarman, Rosenthal De Castro, Miami, Fla., for Hotel, Motel, Restaurant Hi-Rise Employees Bartenders Union, Local 355, AFL-CIO. Joel I. Keiler, McLean, Va., for Southern Beau. Finley, Kumble, Wagner, Heine, Underberg Casey, Carl A. Schwarz, Jr., New York City, for Estate of Kaskel, et al. Application for Enforcement

  7. N.L.R.B. v. Evans Packing Company

    463 F.2d 193 (6th Cir. 1972)   Cited 12 times
    In Evans, the evidence was clear that the complaining employee was speaking on behalf of others who were equally concerned about overtime pay.