Long Island Association for AIDS Care, Inc.

13 Cited authorities

Carey v. Piphus
435 U.S. 247 (1978) Cited 3,636 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that nominal damages are appropriate when a plaintiff's constitutional rights have been infringed but he cannot show further injury
Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody
422 U.S. 405 (1975) Cited 2,629 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employment policy cannot stand if another policy, "without a similarly undesirable racial effect, would also serve the employer's legitimate interest"
New Process Steel v. N.L.R.B.
560 U.S. 674 (2010) Cited 141 times 49 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Board cannot exercise its powers absent a lawfully appointed quorum
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"
Flex Frac Logistics, L.L.C. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
746 F.3d 205 (5th Cir. 2014) Cited 30 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that a workplace rule preventing employees from discussing wage information violates § 8
Reno Hilton Resorts v. N.L.R.B
196 F.3d 1275 (D.C. Cir. 1999) Cited 23 times
Concluding that "[t]he timing of the decision to contract out is suspect" where it "came on the heels of heavy union activity" and the employer knew of the purported rationale for its subcontracting decision long before it implemented that decision
Laro Maintenance Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
56 F.3d 224 (D.C. Cir. 1995) Cited 23 times
Inferring discriminatory motive from, inter alia, an employer's professed desire to hire the best qualified workers and the employer's subsequent decision to hire employees with no relevant experience over union members with experience
Hyundai Am. Shipping Agency, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
805 F.3d 309 (D.C. Cir. 2015) Cited 2 times
Declining to endorse the Board's "novel view" but holding that Hyundai's rule prohibiting discussion of all matters under investigation "was so broad and undifferentiated that the Board reasonably concluded that Hyundai did not present a legitimate business justification for it"
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
Hall v. N.L.R.B
941 F.2d 684 (8th Cir. 1991) Cited 19 times
Concluding that lack of "prior warning or reprimand" supported a finding of unlawful motivation

Long Island Association for AIDS Care, Inc.

13 Cited authorities

Holding that nominal damages are appropriate when a plaintiff's constitutional rights have been infringed but he cannot show further injury

Holding that an employment policy cannot stand if another policy, "without a similarly undesirable racial effect, would also serve the employer's legitimate interest"

Holding that the Board cannot exercise its powers absent a lawfully appointed quorum

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"

Holding that a workplace rule preventing employees from discussing wage information violates § 8

Concluding that "[t]he timing of the decision to contract out is suspect" where it "came on the heels of heavy union activity" and the employer knew of the purported rationale for its subcontracting decision long before it implemented that decision

Inferring discriminatory motive from, inter alia, an employer's professed desire to hire the best qualified workers and the employer's subsequent decision to hire employees with no relevant experience over union members with experience

Declining to endorse the Board's "novel view" but holding that Hyundai's rule prohibiting discussion of all matters under investigation "was so broad and undifferentiated that the Board reasonably concluded that Hyundai did not present a legitimate business justification for it"

Upholding Board's determination that discharge for insubordination was pretextual where employer "refused to discharge" another employee also accused of insubordination

Concluding that lack of "prior warning or reprimand" supported a finding of unlawful motivation