Hitachi Capital America Corp.

22 Cited authorities

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Transportation Management Corp.
462 U.S. 393 (1983) Cited 650 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."
New Process Steel v. N.L.R.B.
560 U.S. 674 (2010) Cited 141 times 49 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Board cannot exercise its powers absent a lawfully appointed quorum
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 356 times 46 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act
Labor Board v. Burnup Sims
379 U.S. 21 (1964) Cited 106 times 21 Legal Analyses
Finding violation of § 8 "whatever the employer's motive"
Ark Las Vegas Restaurant Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
334 F.3d 99 (D.C. Cir. 2003) Cited 46 times
Upholding NLRB panel's finding that employer violated the NLRA when supervisor banned employee from talking to her coworkers about joining a union
Prill v. N.L.R.B
755 F.2d 941 (D.C. Cir. 1985) Cited 80 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."
W.F. Bolin Co. v. N.L.R.B
70 F.3d 863 (6th Cir. 1995) Cited 48 times
Holding that an "inference of improper employer motivation" is permitted when an employer has terminated an employee who acted as a leader in making complaints to management on behalf of himself or others, or has organized workers on employment issues
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 16 times 2 Legal Analyses
Striking down rule that only allowed employees to complain internally

Hitachi Capital America Corp.

22 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 that the Board cannot exercise its powers absent a lawfully appointed quorum

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

Finding violation of § 8 "whatever the employer's motive"

Upholding NLRB panel's finding that employer violated the NLRA when supervisor banned employee from talking to her coworkers about joining a union

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 that an "inference of improper employer motivation" is permitted when an employer has terminated an employee who acted as a leader in making complaints to management on behalf of himself or others, or has organized workers on employment issues

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