§

Hoot Winc, LLC and Ontario Wings, LLC dba Hooters of Ontario Mills, Joint Employers

31-CA-104872 (N.L.R.B. May. 19, 2014)
Hoot Winc, LLC and Ontario Wings, LLC dba Hooters of Ontario Mills, Joint Employers

15 Cited authorities

  1. AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion

    563 U.S. 333 (2011)   Cited 3,961 times   603 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a ban on collective-action waivers in those contracts worked to "disfavor arbitration"

  2. National Labor Rel. B. v. Kentucky R. Comm. C

    532 U.S. 706 (2001)   Cited 180 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the burden of proving a statutory exception generally falls on the party who claims a benefit

  3. D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    737 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2013)   Cited 142 times   145 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an arbitration agreement that prohibited an employee from pursuing claims collectively did not violate the NLRA and must be enforced

  4. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Browning-Ferris Industries of Pennsylvania, Inc.

    691 F.2d 1117 (3d Cir. 1982)   Cited 339 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that joint employer situation exists only when "two or more employers exert significant control over the same employees . . . [where] they share or co-determine those matters governing essential terms and conditions of employment"

  5. Owen v. Bristol Care, Inc.

    702 F.3d 1050 (8th Cir. 2013)   Cited 119 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Finding plaintiff failed to identify anything "in either the text or legislative history of the FLSA that indicates a congressional intent to bar employees from agreeing to arbitrate FLSA claims individually, nor is there an 'inherent conflict' between the FLSA and the FAA"

  6. 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"

  7. Richards v. Ernst

    734 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2013)   Cited 5 times   4 Legal Analyses
    In Richards, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit amended its opinion and declined to decide whether to follow the board on the ground that the plaintiff had forfeited the argument.

  8. 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”

  9. Roadway Exp., Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    427 F. App'x 838 (11th Cir. 2011)   Cited 3 times

    No. 10-12445. May 27, 2011. Todd A. Dawson, Baker Hostetler, LLP, Cleveland, OH, for Petitioner. Usha Dheenan, Linda Dreeben, Assistant General Counsel, Fred B. Jacob, Assistant General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, DC, Rochelle Kentov, Christopher Zerby, Tampa, FL, for Respondent. Barbara M. Harvey, Detroit, MI, for Intervenor. Petition for Review of a Decision of the National Labor Relations Board and Cross Application for Enforcement. Agency No. 12-CA-22202. Before DUBINA

  10. Bloomington-Normal Seating Co. v. N.L.R.B

    357 F.3d 692 (7th Cir. 2004)   Cited 8 times

    No. 03-2929, 03-3101. Argued January 21, 2004. Decided February 5, 2004. Petition for Review and Cross-Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. No. 33-CA-13769. Gary A. Wincek (argued), Laner, Muchin, Dumbrow, Becker, Levin Tominberg, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner. Will J. Vance, National Labor Relations Board, Peoria, IL, Aileen Armstrong, Arthur F. Rosenfeld (argued), National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. Before FLAUM, Chief Judge, and POSNER and RIPPLE