§

K-VA-T FOOD STORES, INC. D/B/A FOOD CITY

09-CA-046125 (N.L.R.B. Jul. 11, 2011)
K-VA-T FOOD STORES, INC. D/B/A FOOD CITY

16 Cited authorities

  1. 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."

  2. 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

  3. Pan-American Life v. Cypress Fairbanks

    522 U.S. 862 (1997)   Cited 19 times

    No. 97-98. October 6, 1997, October TERM, 1997. C.A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 110 F. 3d 280.

  4. N.L.R.B. v. Camco, Incorporated

    340 F.2d 803 (5th Cir. 1965)   Cited 76 times
    Holding that knowledge of union activities could be inferred from the fact that an employer discharged eleven of sixteen union adherents without discharging any of its remaining seventy-four employees

  5. S F Market St. Healthcare LLC v. N.L.R.B

    570 F.3d 354 (D.C. Cir. 2009)   Cited 10 times

    No. 07-1439, 07-1502. Argued November 17, 2008. Decided June 30, 2009. John H. Douglas argued the cause and filed the briefs for petitioner. Amy H. Ginn, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Ronald E. Meisburg, General Counsel, John H. Ferguson, Associate General Counsel, Linda Dreeben, Deputy Associate General Counsel, and Jill A. Griffin, Supervisory Attorney. Meredith L. Jason and Jason Walta, Attorneys, entered appearances. Before:

  6. Dilling Mechanical Contractors v. N.L.R.B

    107 F.3d 521 (7th Cir. 1997)   Cited 22 times

    Nos. 95-3407 and 95-3641 ARGUED SEPTEMBER 4, 1996 DECIDED FEBRUARY 21, 1997 Michael L. Einterz (argued), Indianapolis, IN, for Dilling Mechanical Contractors, Inc. Aileen A. Armstrong, Peter D. Winkler, Vincent Falvo (argued), National Labor Relations Board, Appellate Court, Enforcement Litigation, Washington, DC, Walter Steele, National Labor Relations Board, Indianapolis, IN, for National Labor Relations Board. William R. Groth, Fillenwarth, Dennerline, Groth Towe, Indianapolis, IN, for Indiana

  7. N.L.R.B. v. Int'l Brotherhood

    514 F.3d 646 (6th Cir. 2008)   Cited 7 times
    Holding that the Board has initial burden of showing that protected conduct was a "motivating factor" in the union’s discrimination against an employee in violation of § 8(b)

  8. New Orleans Cold Storage & Warehouse Co., Ltd. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    201 F.3d 592 (5th Cir. 2000)   Cited 11 times
    Rejecting a company's argument that the employee would have been terminated regardless of his union activity where the evidence was that the company did not ordinarily enforce certain rules and procedures

  9. N.L.R.B. v. American Dir. Boring

    383 F. App'x 594 (8th Cir. 2010)   Cited 1 times

    No. 09-1194. Submitted: December 17, 2009. Filed: June 24, 2010. Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Linda Dreeben, Assistant General Counsel, Kellie Isbell, Meredith Jason, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, DC, Ralph P. Tremain, National Labor Relations Board, St. Louis, MO, for Petitioner. Christopher Grant, Schuchat Cook, St. Louis, MO, for Intervenor. Bryan M. Kaemmerer, Michael E. Kaemmerer, McCarthy Leonard, Chester-field, MO, for Respondent

  10. International Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge 845 v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    265 F. App'x 547 (9th Cir. 2008)

    Nos. 05-77400, 05-77408, 05-77419. Argued and Submitted November 9, 2007. Filed January 24, 2008. David A. Rosenfeld, Esq., Weinberg Roger Rosenfeld, Alameda, CA, for Petitioner. Regional Director, National Labor Relations Board Region, Oakland, CA, Regional Director, San Francisco, CA, Aileen A. Armstrong, Esq., Kathleen Lyon, National Labor Relations Board, Contempt Litigation Compliance Branch, Washington, DC, for Respondent. Joel W. Rice, Esq., Fisher Phillips, LLP, Chicago, IL, for Intervenor

  11. Rule 1006 - Summaries to Prove Content

    Fed. R. Evid. 1006   Cited 1,838 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Allowing a "summary, chart, or calculation to prove the content of voluminous writings, recordings, or photographs that cannot be conveniently examined in court."