Mack'S Supermarkets, Inc.

10 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."
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co.
395 U.S. 575 (1969) Cited 1,035 times 67 Legal Analyses
Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"
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."
Hunter Douglas, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
804 F.2d 808 (3d Cir. 1986) Cited 423 times
Timing and departure from past practice indicates unlawful motive
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
Tripoli Co., Inc. v. Wella Corp.
400 U.S. 831 (1970) Cited 137 times
Declining to review under Hobbs Act district court's exercise of jurisdiction of claim against Federal Communications Commission because plaintiff-appellant had also filed timely petitions for review with court of appeals
N.L.R.B. v. Security Guard Service, Inc.
384 F.2d 143 (5th Cir. 1967) Cited 53 times 1 Legal Analyses
Recognizing "the standard reluctance to apply [a statutory] exception broadly"
Hotel Emp. Restaurant Emp. Un. v. N.L.R.B
760 F.2d 1006 (9th Cir. 1985) Cited 26 times 6 Legal Analyses
Affirming Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176
Burger King Corp. v. N.L.R.B
725 F.2d 1053 (6th Cir. 1984) Cited 17 times
Noting that the challenged policy must be enforced in a “consistent and nondiscriminatory fashion”
Westinghouse Electric Corporation v. N.L.R.B
424 F.2d 1151 (7th Cir. 1970) Cited 20 times
In Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. NLRB, 424 F.2d 1151 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 831, 91 S.Ct. 63, 27 L.Ed.2d 62 (1970), the Seventh Circuit permitted the Board to use a 50% formula to determine whether certain workers could vote in a union election.

Mack'S Supermarkets, Inc.

10 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 a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"

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

Timing and departure from past practice indicates unlawful motive

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

Declining to review under Hobbs Act district court's exercise of jurisdiction of claim against Federal Communications Commission because plaintiff-appellant had also filed timely petitions for review with court of appeals

Recognizing "the standard reluctance to apply [a statutory] exception broadly"

Affirming Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176

Noting that the challenged policy must be enforced in a “consistent and nondiscriminatory fashion”

In Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. NLRB, 424 F.2d 1151 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 831, 91 S.Ct. 63, 27 L.Ed.2d 62 (1970), the Seventh Circuit permitted the Board to use a 50% formula to determine whether certain workers could vote in a union election.