EYM King of Missouri, L.L.C. d/b/a Burger King

14 Cited authorities

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Transportation Management Corp.
462 U.S. 393 (1983) Cited 647 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. Town & Country Electric, Inc.
516 U.S. 85 (1995) Cited 85 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding "employee," as defined by the NLRA, "does not exclude paid union organizers"
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
Labor Bd. v. Washington Aluminum Co.
370 U.S. 9 (1962) Cited 205 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that certain employee conduct crosses the line from protected activity to "indefensible" conduct that loses NLRA protections
N.L.R.B. v. Wright Line, a Div. of Wright Line, Inc.
662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981) Cited 355 times 46 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act
Prill v. N.L.R.B
755 F.2d 941 (D.C. Cir. 1985) Cited 81 times 3 Legal Analyses
In Prill v. NLRB, 755 F.2d 941, 948 (D.C. Cir. 1985), the D.C. Circuit remanded a case to the agency because "a regulation [was] based on an incorrect view of applicable law."
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. FES
301 F.3d 83 (3d Cir. 2002) Cited 45 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding issue not exhausted where the "tenor" of petitioner's objection to the Board was "purely factual," but the tenor of the objection on appeal was legal
Multi-Ad Services, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
255 F.3d 363 (7th Cir. 2001) Cited 33 times
Affirming Board's finding of coercive interrogation where an employee was asked "why he would want to bring a union into the company"
Allegheny Ludlum Corporation v. N.L.R.B
104 F.3d 1354 (D.C. Cir. 1997) Cited 21 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Allegheny Ludlum, however, we upheld an unfair labor practice violation where the employer warned it would "no longer find ways" to avoid laying off employees if they joined a union.
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”

EYM King of Missouri, L.L.C. d/b/a Burger King

14 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."

Holding "employee," as defined by the NLRA, "does not exclude paid union organizers"

Upholding conclusion that employees classified as department managers did not meet executive exemption

Holding that certain employee conduct crosses the line from protected activity to "indefensible" conduct that loses NLRA protections

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

In Prill v. NLRB, 755 F.2d 941, 948 (D.C. Cir. 1985), the D.C. Circuit remanded a case to the agency because "a regulation [was] based on an incorrect view of applicable law."

Holding issue not exhausted where the "tenor" of petitioner's objection to the Board was "purely factual," but the tenor of the objection on appeal was legal

Affirming Board's finding of coercive interrogation where an employee was asked "why he would want to bring a union into the company"

In Allegheny Ludlum, however, we upheld an unfair labor practice violation where the employer warned it would "no longer find ways" to avoid laying off employees if they joined a union.

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