§

Lou's Transport, Inc. and T.K.M.S., Inc.

07-CA-102517 (N.L.R.B. Jun. 5, 2014)
Lou's Transport, Inc. and T.K.M.S., Inc.

11 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 106 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. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Relco Locomotives, Inc.

    734 F.3d 764 (8th Cir. 2013)   Cited 95 times
    Holding that a challenge to the composition of the National Labor Relations Board under the Recess Appointments Clause was not jurisdictional and could be forfeited if not raised to the Board

  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Magnavox Co. of Tennessee

    415 U.S. 322 (1974)   Cited 76 times
    In Magnavox, the Board changed its bifurcated rule and adopted the Eighth Circuit's view that the union had no power to waive employee distribution rights on behalf of either itself or another union.

  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. Oaktree Capital Mgmt. L.P. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    452 F. App'x 433 (5th Cir. 2011)   Cited 3 times
    Finding that the involvement of a corporate owner of a resort in the "underlying incidents" giving rise to the litigation was evidence of centralized control of labor relations

  8. Media Gen. v. N.L.R.B

    560 F.3d 181 (4th Cir. 2009)   Cited 4 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Nos. 08-1153, 08-1197. Argued: December 4, 2008. Decided: March 13, 2009. ARGUED: Glenn Edward Plosa, Zinser Law Firm, P.C., Nashville, Tennessee, for Media General Operations, Incorporated, d/b/a The Tampa Tribune. Fred B. Jacob, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, DC, for the National Labor Relations Board. ON BRIEF: L. Michael Zinser, Zinser Law Firm, P.C., Nashville, Tennessee, for Media General Operations, Incorporated, d/b/a The Tampa Tribune. Ronald Meisburg, General Counsel, John

  9. Pergament United Sales, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    920 F.2d 130 (2d Cir. 1990)   Cited 20 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "due process is satisfied when a complaint gives a respondent fair notice . . . and when the conduct implicated in the alleged violation has been fully and fairly litigated"

  10. 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