§

Mediplex of Stamford

334 N.L.R.B. 903 (N.L.R.B. 2001)
Mediplex of Stamford

10 Cited authorities

  1. 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."

  2. 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

  3. Labor Board v. Pittsburgh S. S. Co.

    340 U.S. 498 (1951)   Cited 97 times
    In NLRB v. Pittsburgh Steamship Co., 340 U.S. 498, 71 S.Ct. 453, 95 L.Ed. 479 (1951), the Court held that an employer's letters to employees on the eve of a union election were not substantial evidence of an unfair labor practice, but the Court "express[ed] no opinion on the possible effect of § 8(c)" on the inferences permissibly drawn from those letters.

  4. N.L.R.B. v. Eastern Smelting Refining Corp.

    598 F.2d 666 (1st Cir. 1979)   Cited 54 times
    In NLRB v. Eastern Smelting, 598 F.2d 666 (1st Cir. 1979), we held that the burden is on the Board to show that the discharge resulted from the improper motive alleged, and that except in clear cases, "the mere fact that the Board considers the asserted good reason less than compelling will not suffice...."

  5. Florida Steel Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    587 F.2d 735 (5th Cir. 1979)   Cited 37 times
    Holding that company letter to employees advising them of their right to ask for an opportunity to obtain legal counsel before speaking with a NLRB agent following a failed union election was protected speech under the First Amendment and § 8(c)

  6. Holo-Krome Co. v. N.L.R.B

    907 F.2d 1343 (2d Cir. 1990)   Cited 14 times
    Holding the Board's use of employer's protected expressions of opinion against union as a basis for finding animus to be contrary to section 8(c)

  7. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Lampi LLC

    240 F.3d 931 (11th Cir. 2001)   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 99-15054. January 30, 2001. Anna Francis, NLRB, Aileen A. Armstrong, Washington, DC, Thomas J. Walsh, Jr., Ford Harrison, LLP., Memphis, TN, for Petitioner. David C. Hagaman, Ford Harrison, Atlanta, GA, for Respondent. Petition for Review of an Application for Enforcement of the National Labor Relations Board. Before DUBINA, FAY and COX, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: We have for review a decision and order of the National Labor Relations Board which found that Appellant Lampi, LLC engaged in an

  8. Tri-State Truck Service, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    616 F.2d 65 (3d Cir. 1980)   Cited 11 times

    No. 79-1611. Submitted Under Third Circuit Rule 12(6) on January 10, 1980. Decided February 13, 1980. David L. Robertson, Jeffrey J. Bernstein, Bogarad Robertson, Paris, Pa., for petitioner. Andrew F. Tranovich, Allison Beck, N.L.R.B., Washington, D. C., John S. Irving, Gen. Counsel, John E. Higgings, Jr., Deputy Gen. Counsel, Robert E. Allen, Acting Associate Gen. Counsel, Eliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C., for respondent. Petition for review from the National Labor Relations

  9. N.L.R.B. v. Rockwell Mfg. Co.

    271 F.2d 109 (3d Cir. 1959)   Cited 22 times
    In NLRB v. Rockwell Mfg. Co., 271 F.2d 109 (3d Cir. 1959), after considering the Supreme Court's decision in Republic Aviation, and the effect of that Court's subsequent decisions in Babcock Wilcox and NLRB v. United Steelworkers of America, 357 U.S. 357, 78 S.Ct. 1268, 2 L.Ed.2d 1383 (1958), on Republic Aviation, this court held that the Board must consider the element of alternative means of communication before invalidating a no-distribution rule which an employer has attempted to justify.

  10. Pittsburgh S.S. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    180 F.2d 731 (6th Cir. 1950)   Cited 22 times
    In Pittsburgh S.S. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 6 Cir., 180 F.2d 731, 735, affirmed 340 U.S. 498, 71 S.Ct. 453, 95 L.Ed. 479, the Court of Appeals, under a somewhat similar factual situation, stated, "With reference to the right of free speech the legislative history shows that the amendment embodied in § 8(c) of the Taft-Hartley Act was specifically intended to prevent the Board from using unrelated non-coercive expressions of opinion on union matters as evidence of a general course of unfair labor conduct."