King Soopers, Inc.

9 Cited authorities

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."
Linn v. Plant Guard Workers
383 U.S. 53 (1966) Cited 732 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding as preempted all defamation actions in labor disputes except those published with actual malice
Detroit Edison Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
440 U.S. 301 (1979) Cited 228 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that NLRB erred in requiring employer to disclose performance test scores of employees as information for collective bargaining, regardless of employee consent, because of the sensitive nature of the test scores
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Acme Industrial Co.
385 U.S. 432 (1967) Cited 265 times 4 Legal Analyses
Approving "discovery-type standard"
Labor Board v. Walton Mfg. Co.
369 U.S. 404 (1962) Cited 298 times
Explaining that the deferential standard of review is appropriate because the "[the ALJ] ... sees the witnesses and hears them testify, while the Board and the reviewing court look only at cold records"
Republic Aviation Corp. v. Board
324 U.S. 793 (1945) Cited 495 times 34 Legal Analyses
Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."
Teledyne Industries, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
911 F.2d 1214 (6th Cir. 1990) Cited 380 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding agreed order not binding on NLRB on appeal
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
United States Postal Service v. N.L.R.B
652 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1981) Cited 3 times
Reviewing the "indefensible under the circumstances" test as applied in this Circuit

King Soopers, Inc.

9 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 as preempted all defamation actions in labor disputes except those published with actual malice

Holding that NLRB erred in requiring employer to disclose performance test scores of employees as information for collective bargaining, regardless of employee consent, because of the sensitive nature of the test scores

Approving "discovery-type standard"

Explaining that the deferential standard of review is appropriate because the "[the ALJ] ... sees the witnesses and hears them testify, while the Board and the reviewing court look only at cold records"

Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."

Holding agreed order not binding on NLRB on appeal

Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act

Reviewing the "indefensible under the circumstances" test as applied in this Circuit