Oklahoma Installation Co.

18 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."
Labor Board v. Walton Mfg. Co.
369 U.S. 404 (1962) Cited 298 times
Explaining that the deferential standard of review is appropriate because the "[the ALJ] ... sees the witnesses and hears them testify, while the Board and the reviewing court look only at cold records"
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Fleetwood Trailer Co.
389 U.S. 375 (1967) Cited 233 times
In Fleetwood Trailer, 389 U.S. 375, 88 S.Ct. 543, the Supreme Court was required to determine whether the employer violated the Act when it hired six new employees who had not previously worked for the company instead of six former strikers who had applied for reinstatement.
Turnbull Cone Baking Co. v. N.L.R.B
778 F.2d 292 (6th Cir. 1985) Cited 51 times
In Turnbull Cone, we unequivocally established that "[c]ircumstantial evidence alone may be sufficient" to prove a section 8(a)(3) transgression.
N.L.R.B. v. Armcor Industries, Inc.
535 F.2d 239 (3d Cir. 1976) Cited 51 times
Denying enforcement of bargaining orders
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours
750 F.2d 524 (6th Cir. 1984) Cited 33 times
Finding that a supervisor's act of questioning an employee as to why he supported the union, as well as the supervisor's statement to the employee that he had supervisor potential if he did not support the union, rose to the level of coercive conduct
N.L.R.B. v. Centra, Inc.
954 F.2d 366 (6th Cir. 1992) Cited 16 times
Finding that employer implemented its plan secretly and failed to inform union until too late to bargain
Misericordia Hospital Medical Ctr. v. N.L.R.B
623 F.2d 808 (2d Cir. 1980) Cited 25 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding no supervisory status where the employee in question "had no authority to do more than orally counsel and reprimand employees."
N.L.R.B. v. Instrument Corp. of America
714 F.2d 324 (4th Cir. 1983) Cited 21 times
Finding no Section 8 violation in the termination of an employee who had "spotty" attendance at work
Kessel Food Markets, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
868 F.2d 881 (6th Cir. 1989) Cited 13 times
Finding judges and administrative officers do not exceed the bounds of due process when they perform investigative and judicial functions
Rule 801 - Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay
Fed. R. Evid. 801 Cited 19,588 times 77 Legal Analyses
Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party
Rule 103 - Rulings on Evidence
Fed. R. Evid. 103 Cited 3,506 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that once a court makes a definitive ruling on the record to either admit or exclude evidence, at or before trial, a party need not renew an objection at trial to preserve any alleged error for appeal

Oklahoma Installation Co.

18 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."

Explaining that the deferential standard of review is appropriate because the "[the ALJ] ... sees the witnesses and hears them testify, while the Board and the reviewing court look only at cold records"

In Fleetwood Trailer, 389 U.S. 375, 88 S.Ct. 543, the Supreme Court was required to determine whether the employer violated the Act when it hired six new employees who had not previously worked for the company instead of six former strikers who had applied for reinstatement.

In Turnbull Cone, we unequivocally established that "[c]ircumstantial evidence alone may be sufficient" to prove a section 8(a)(3) transgression.

Denying enforcement of bargaining orders

Finding that a supervisor's act of questioning an employee as to why he supported the union, as well as the supervisor's statement to the employee that he had supervisor potential if he did not support the union, rose to the level of coercive conduct

Finding that employer implemented its plan secretly and failed to inform union until too late to bargain

Finding no supervisory status where the employee in question "had no authority to do more than orally counsel and reprimand employees."

Finding no Section 8 violation in the termination of an employee who had "spotty" attendance at work

Finding judges and administrative officers do not exceed the bounds of due process when they perform investigative and judicial functions

Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party

Holding that once a court makes a definitive ruling on the record to either admit or exclude evidence, at or before trial, a party need not renew an objection at trial to preserve any alleged error for appeal