§
Mission Foods

18 Cited authorities

  1. White v. Illinois

    502 U.S. 346 (1992)   Cited 1,008 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that unavailability need not be shown under Roberts when the hearsay statement falls within a hearsay exception providing sufficient inidicia of reliability

  2. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Transportation Management Corp.

    462 U.S. 393 (1983)   Cited 655 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."

  3. Labor Board v. Katz

    369 U.S. 736 (1962)   Cited 711 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"

  4. Caine v. Hardy

    503 U.S. 936 (1992)   Cited 103 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Explaining the Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 68 L.Ed.2d 420 / Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 doctrine

  5. 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

  6. Hyatt Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    939 F.2d 361 (6th Cir. 1991)   Cited 99 times
    Upholding Section 8 violations, under Birch Run's general layoff theory, where three union supporters and nine other employees were discharged over a seven month period

  7. U.S. Marine Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    944 F.2d 1305 (7th Cir. 1990)   Cited 49 times

    Nos. 89-2051, 89-2140 and 89-2152. Argued December 5, 1989. Decided October 18, 1990. Reheard En Banc June 11, 1991. Decided September 25, 1991. Fred G. Groiss, Quarles Brady, Milwaukee, Wis., James D. Holzhauer (argued), Mayer, Brown Platt, Chicago, Ill., for petitioners/cross-respondents. Kenneth R. Loebel (argued), Previant, Goldberg, Uelman, Gratz, Miller Brueggeman, Milwaukee, Wis., for intervening respondent, petioner. Steven B. Goldstein, Contempt Litigation Branch, Washington, D.C., Fred

  8. N.L.R.B.v. Talsol Corp.

    155 F.3d 785 (6th Cir. 1998)   Cited 23 times
    Holding that an employee's comments about safety at a group meeting attended by employees and management constituted concerted activity because the meeting was conducted to address plant safety concerns, the employee's questions were on the topic of safety, and the context indicated that the employee's statements were “[c]learly ... not purely personal gripes”

  9. Daily News of Los Angeles v. N.L.R.B

    73 F.3d 406 (D.C. Cir. 1996)   Cited 15 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that merit-increase program is a mandatory subject of bargaining

  10. NATIONAL LAB. REL. BD. v. DYNATRON/BONDO

    176 F.3d 1310 (11th Cir. 1999)   Cited 10 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Acknowledging evidence tending to show the Board's comparators were not similarly situated to an employee who received harsher treatment, but nonetheless concluding substantial evidence supported the Board's finding

  11. Rule 804 - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay-When the Declarant Is Unavailable as a Witness

    Fed. R. Evid. 804   Cited 4,059 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing an exception to the hearsay exclusionary rule when the party against whom the statement is offered has engaged in wrongdoing which procures the unavailability of the declarant

  12. Rule 807 - Residual Exception

    Fed. R. Evid. 807   Cited 1,625 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Requiring "sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness" under the residual exception to the hearsay rule