13 Cited authorities
White v. Illinois
502 U.S. 346 (1992) Cited 1,008 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that unavailability need not be shown under Roberts when the hearsay statement falls within a hearsay exception providing sufficient inidicia of reliability
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Transportation Management Corp.
462 U.S. 393 (1983) Cited 652 times 11 Legal AnalysesHolding 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."
Labor Board v. Katz
369 U.S. 736 (1962) Cited 710 times 29 Legal AnalysesHolding 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"
Caine v. Hardy
503 U.S. 936 (1992) Cited 103 times 1 Legal AnalysesExplaining 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
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 AnalysesHolding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act
U.S. Marine Corp. v. N.L.R.B
944 F.2d 1305 (7th Cir. 1990) Cited 49 timesNos. 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
Daily News of Los Angeles v. N.L.R.B
73 F.3d 406 (D.C. Cir. 1996) Cited 15 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that merit-increase program is a mandatory subject of bargaining
N.L.R.B. v. Vanguard Tours. Inc.
981 F.2d 62 (2d Cir. 1992) Cited 13 timesHolding that an overbroad rule was unlawful because of the "likely chilling effect of such a rule"
Dow Chemical, Texas Division v. N.L.R.B
660 F.2d 637 (5th Cir. 1981) Cited 18 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that employees' statutory right to free choice under section 7 of the Act would be abrogated by requiring a continued duty to bargain after union lost fair decertification election and restating rule that employer has no duty to bargain when it has a good faith and reasonable doubt of union's continued majority status
N.L.R.B. v. Limestone Apparel Corp.
705 F.2d 799 (6th Cir. 1982) Cited 3 timesNo. 81-1693. October 29, 1982. Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Jacob Oliner, Oliner Oliner, New York City, for respondent. Petition to Enforce an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Before LIVELY, KRUPANSKY and WELLFORD, Circuit Judges. ORDER This cause comes before the Court upon the motion of the intervenor, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, for an order enforcing the order of the National Labor Relations Board in Limestone
Rule 804 - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay-When the Declarant Is Unavailable as a Witness
Fed. R. Evid. 804 Cited 4,049 times 32 Legal AnalysesRecognizing 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
Rule 807 - Residual Exception
Fed. R. Evid. 807 Cited 1,617 times 11 Legal AnalysesRequiring "sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness" under the residual exception to the hearsay rule