EYM King of Michigan, LLC d/b/a Burger King

14 Cited authorities

San Diego Unions v. Garmon
359 U.S. 236 (1959) Cited 2,570 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]"
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."
Beth Israel Hospital v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
437 U.S. 483 (1978) Cited 221 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that, in the context of solicitation rules, such circumstances are required to justify restrictions on solicitation during nonworking time
Republic Aviation Corp. v. Board
324 U.S. 793 (1945) Cited 495 times 34 Legal Analyses
Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."
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
Community Hospitals of Cent Cal. v. N.L.R.B
335 F.3d 1079 (D.C. Cir. 2003) Cited 24 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that the single-facility presumption can be rebutted by a showing of “functional integration,” among other factors
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
Double Eagle Hotel Casino v. N.L.R.B
414 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 2005) Cited 10 times
Sustaining Board invalidation of policy defining "confidential information" to include salary information
Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
338 F.3d 267 (4th Cir. 2003) Cited 9 times
Noting that "an employee . . . can lose protections if his conduct is so egregious as to take it outside the protection of the Act, or of such a character as to render the employee unfit for further service"
Meijer v. N.L.R.B
463 F.3d 534 (6th Cir. 2006) Cited 5 times
Holding that "an employer’s knowledge is an element of a § 8 violation"; abrogating a Board rule that eliminated a subjective component

EYM King of Michigan, LLC d/b/a Burger King

14 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 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, in the context of solicitation rules, such circumstances are required to justify restrictions on solicitation during nonworking time

Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."

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

Holding that the single-facility presumption can be rebutted by a showing of “functional integration,” among other factors

Striking down rule that only allowed employees to complain internally

Sustaining Board invalidation of policy defining "confidential information" to include salary information

Noting that "an employee . . . can lose protections if his conduct is so egregious as to take it outside the protection of the Act, or of such a character as to render the employee unfit for further service"

Holding that "an employer’s knowledge is an element of a § 8 violation"; abrogating a Board rule that eliminated a subjective component