§
KNTV, Inc.

12 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. Romano v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith

    487 U.S. 1205 (1988)   Cited 107 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Upholding conclusion that employees classified as department managers did not meet executive exemption

  3. 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

  4. Prill v. N.L.R.B

    755 F.2d 941 (D.C. Cir. 1985)   Cited 80 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Prill v. NLRB, 755 F.2d 941, 948 (D.C. Cir. 1985), the D.C. Circuit remanded a case to the agency because "a regulation [was] based on an incorrect view of applicable law."

  5. N.L.R.B. v. Mike Yurosek Son, Inc.

    53 F.3d 261 (9th Cir. 1995)   Cited 22 times
    Holding that four employees who protested reduction in hours and then later refused a contradictory order to work longer hours engaged in concerted activity

  6. 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”

  7. Shattuck Denn Mining Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    362 F.2d 466 (9th Cir. 1966)   Cited 56 times
    Upholding Board's determination that discharge for insubordination was pretextual where employer "refused to discharge" another employee also accused of insubordination

  8. Dayton Typographic Service, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    778 F.2d 1188 (6th Cir. 1985)   Cited 25 times
    Finding the employer's "lack of work" defense unconvincing where the employer hired two new employees to do part-time work in the same department as the discharged employee

  9. Richardson Paint Co., Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    574 F.2d 1195 (5th Cir. 1978)   Cited 5 times

    No. 76-4314. June 12, 1978. Randolph P. Tower, Theo. F. Weiss, San Antonio, Tex., for petitioner, cross-respondent. Elliott Moore, Deputy Assoc., Gen. Counsel, Michael S. Winer, Supervisor, Ruth E. Peters, Atty., John S. Irving, Gen. Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy Gen. Counsel, Carl L. Taylor, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for respondent, cross-petitioner. Petition for Review and Cross-Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Before

  10. Pacific Electricord v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    361 F.2d 310 (9th Cir. 1966)   Cited 14 times

    No. 20276. April 26, 1966. Sweeney, Irwin, Cozy Foye, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioners. Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Warren M. Davison, Martin R. Ganzglass, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for respondent. Before MERRILL and BROWNING, Circuit Judges, and THOMPSON, District Judge. PER CURIAM. Upon an examination of the whole record we conclude that there was substantial evidence from which the Board could infer