Kentucky River Medical Center

34 Cited authorities

Ford Motor Co. v. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n
458 U.S. 219 (1982) Cited 758 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that a claimant need not “accept a demotion” in order to mitigate damages
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
Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
466 F.2d 380 (D.C. Cir. 1972) Cited 157 times 1 Legal Analyses
Declining to enforce Board order giving retroactive effect to rule newly announced in adjudication
N.L.R.B. v. Madison Courier, Inc.
472 F.2d 1307 (D.C. Cir. 1972) Cited 97 times
Holding that "[i]f the discriminatee accepts significantly lower-paying work too soon after the discrimination in question, he may be subject to a reduction in back pay on the ground that he willfully incurred a loss by accepting an `unsuitably' low paying position"
N.L.R.B. v. Mastro Plastics Corporation
354 F.2d 170 (2d Cir. 1965) Cited 96 times
In Mastro, the relatives of two deceased discriminatees had testified as to the discriminatees' diligent searches for work.
N.L.R.B. v. Bufco Corp.
899 F.2d 608 (7th Cir. 1990) Cited 33 times
Adopting Deklewa and applying it retroactively
U.S. Can Co. v. N.L.R.B
254 F.3d 626 (7th Cir. 2001) Cited 15 times
Finding no prejudice where the obligation of the respondent would have been the same had the NLRB filed its petition for enforcement sooner
Yesterday's Children, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
115 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 1997) Cited 18 times
Timing of reprimand, coming soon after protected activities, "raise[d] suspicions"
N.L.R.B. v. Ferguson Elec. Co., Inc.
242 F.3d 426 (2d Cir. 2001) Cited 14 times
Noting that the period may be shortened by a showing that the salt accepted a promotion from the Union during the back pay period which removed him from the field
Canova v. N.L.R.B
708 F.2d 1498 (9th Cir. 1983) Cited 29 times
Holding that an "employer is not liable for back pay during the periods that an improperly discharged employee is unavailable to work due to a disability"

Kentucky River Medical Center

34 Cited authorities

Holding that a claimant need not “accept a demotion” in order to mitigate damages

Holding that the burden of proving a statutory exception generally falls on the party who claims a benefit

Declining to enforce Board order giving retroactive effect to rule newly announced in adjudication

Holding that "[i]f the discriminatee accepts significantly lower-paying work too soon after the discrimination in question, he may be subject to a reduction in back pay on the ground that he willfully incurred a loss by accepting an `unsuitably' low paying position"

In Mastro, the relatives of two deceased discriminatees had testified as to the discriminatees' diligent searches for work.

Adopting Deklewa and applying it retroactively

Finding no prejudice where the obligation of the respondent would have been the same had the NLRB filed its petition for enforcement sooner

Timing of reprimand, coming soon after protected activities, "raise[d] suspicions"

Noting that the period may be shortened by a showing that the salt accepted a promotion from the Union during the back pay period which removed him from the field

Holding that an "employer is not liable for back pay during the periods that an improperly discharged employee is unavailable to work due to a disability"