§

INOVA Health System

360 N.L.R.B. 1223 (N.L.R.B. 2014)
INOVA Health System

8 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. 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

  3. DTR Industries, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    297 F. App'x 487 (6th Cir. 2008)   Cited 5 times
    In DTR Indus., Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 297 Fed.Appx. 487, 493 (6th Cir.2008) (hereinafter “DTR II”), the Sixth Circuit compared statements made by the company that it had previously held did fall under the protection of § 158(c) with statements that did not qualify for the protection.

  4. N.L.R.B. v. Hotel Employees and Restaurant

    446 F.3d 200 (1st Cir. 2006)   Cited 4 times

    No. 05-1924. Heard January 10, 2006. Decided April 28, 2006. Petition for review from the National Labor Relations Board. David Seid with whom Jill A. Griffin, Supervisory Attorney, Arthur F. Rosenfeld, Acting General Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy General Counsel, John H. Ferguson, Associate General Counsel, and Aileen A. Armstrong, Deputy Associate General Counsel, were on brief for petitioner/cross-respondent. Ellen C. Kearns with whom Jeffery M. Rosin was on brief for respondent/cross-petitioner

  5. Nelson v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    421 F. App'x 342 (5th Cir. 2011)

    No. 10-60762 Summary Calendar. April 5, 2011. Vevria D. Nelson, Greenwood, MS, pro se. Linda Dreeben, Esq., Deputy Associate General Counsel, Fred Barry Jacob, Supervisory Attorney, David A. Seid, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, DC, Ronald K. Hooks, National Labor Relations Board, Memphis, TN, James M.L. Ferber, Tracy Stott Pyles, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Columbus, OH, for Respondents. Petition for Review of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board, Agency No. 26-CA-23180. Before

  6. Mushroom Transportation Company v. N.L.R.B

    330 F.2d 683 (3d Cir. 1964)   Cited 48 times
    In Mushroom Transportation Co. v. NLRB, 330 F.2d 683, 685 (3d Cir. 1964), we held that to qualify as concerted activity "it must appear at the very least that [the conduct] was engaged in with the object of initiating or inducing or preparing for group action or that it had some relation to group action in the interest of the employees."

  7. Jeannette Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    532 F.2d 916 (3d Cir. 1976)   Cited 25 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Sustaining the Board's finding that the employer's rule broadly prohibiting wage discussions was an unfair labor practice under § 8, reasoning that "wage discussions can be protected activity and that an employer's unqualified rule barring such discussions has the tendency to inhibit such activity"

  8. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ogle Protection Service, Inc.

    444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971)   Cited 3 times   3 Legal Analyses

    No. 21049. June 30, 1971. Stanley R. Zirkin, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner; Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Stanley R. Zirkin, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief. Douglas C. Dahn, Detroit, Mich., for respondents; Tolleson, Burgess Mead, Robert D. Welchli, Detroit, Mich., on brief. Before CELEBREZZE, PECK and McCREE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. This case is before us a second