Painters Local 1140 (Harmon Contract)

17 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."
Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education
476 U.S. 267 (1986) Cited 504 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that a contractual provision in a collective bargaining agreement, which "operate[d] against whites and in favor of certain minorities," violated the Equal Protection Clause
Johnson v. Transportation Agency
480 U.S. 616 (1987) Cited 382 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that an affirmative action plan provides a legitimate reason for a hiring decision that considers race or ethnicity
Radio Officers v. Labor Board
347 U.S. 17 (1954) Cited 470 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[t]he policy of the Act is to insulate employees' jobs from their organizational rights"
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
Teamsters Local v. Labor Board
365 U.S. 667 (1961) Cited 174 times
Holding that the Board may not dictate specific procedures and rules that a union must adopt, not that the Board errs when it determines that a union engaged in unfair labor practices by failing to operate in accordance with objective criteria
Mitchell v. Tribune Company
342 U.S. 919 (1952) Cited 90 times
Employing the "target area" approach
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. International Ass'n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 433
600 F.2d 770 (9th Cir. 1979) Cited 31 times
Holding that "[t]he Board may properly find an unfair labor practice when the issue has been fully litigated even though not specifically pleaded in the complaint"
Intern. U. of Oper. Eng. Local 406 v. N.L.R.B
701 F.2d 504 (5th Cir. 1983) Cited 16 times
In Operating Engineers, we held that the union violated section 8(b)(1)(A) when it changed its hiring hall procedures to permit members to take six-day jobs without forfeiting list seniority by not informing a member who declined a six-day job in reliance on the prior five-day rule.
Lummus Company v. N.L.R.B
339 F.2d 728 (D.C. Cir. 1964) Cited 26 times
In Lummus Co. v. N.L.R.B., 119 U.S.App.D.C. 229, 237-38, 339 F.2d 728, 736-37 (1964), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that "[l]abor relations are practical matters.
Rule 401 - Test for Relevant Evidence
Fed. R. Evid. 401 Cited 13,912 times 36 Legal Analyses
Stating that evidence is relevant when "it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable"

Painters Local 1140 (Harmon Contract)

17 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 that a contractual provision in a collective bargaining agreement, which "operate[d] against whites and in favor of certain minorities," violated the Equal Protection Clause

Holding that an affirmative action plan provides a legitimate reason for a hiring decision that considers race or ethnicity

Holding that "[t]he policy of the Act is to insulate employees' jobs from their organizational rights"

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

Holding that the Board may not dictate specific procedures and rules that a union must adopt, not that the Board errs when it determines that a union engaged in unfair labor practices by failing to operate in accordance with objective criteria

Employing the "target area" approach

Holding that "[t]he Board may properly find an unfair labor practice when the issue has been fully litigated even though not specifically pleaded in the complaint"

In Operating Engineers, we held that the union violated section 8(b)(1)(A) when it changed its hiring hall procedures to permit members to take six-day jobs without forfeiting list seniority by not informing a member who declined a six-day job in reliance on the prior five-day rule.

In Lummus Co. v. N.L.R.B., 119 U.S.App.D.C. 229, 237-38, 339 F.2d 728, 736-37 (1964), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that "[l]abor relations are practical matters.

Stating that evidence is relevant when "it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable"