§

Pan American Hospital Corporation

12-CA-023630 (N.L.R.B. Apr. 15, 2005)
Pan American Hospital Corporation

8 Cited authorities

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

    462 U.S. 393 (1983)   Cited 657 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 358 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act

  3. U.S. v. Paxson

    861 F.2d 730 (D.C. Cir. 1988)   Cited 49 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding the vice president of a corporation to be an agent of the president for the purposes of 801(d)(D) because the factors which normally make up an agency relationship were present

  4. Pergament United Sales, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    920 F.2d 130 (2d Cir. 1990)   Cited 20 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "due process is satisfied when a complaint gives a respondent fair notice . . . and when the conduct implicated in the alleged violation has been fully and fairly litigated"

  5. Kamtech, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    314 F.3d 800 (6th Cir. 2002)   Cited 5 times

    Nos. 01-1391, 01-1558. Submitted: August 7, 2002. Decided and Filed: September 4, 2002. This decision was originally issued as an "unpublished decision" filed on September 4, 2002. On December 3, 2002, the court designated the opinion as one recommended for full-text publication. Appeal from the Court of Appeals, Daughtrey, Circuit Judge. J. Roy Weathersby, Eric K. Smith (briefed), Littler Mendelson, Atlanta, GA, for Petitioner Cross-Respondent. Ailen A. Armstrong, Dep.Asso.Gen.Counsel, National

  6. Handicabs, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    95 F.3d 681 (8th Cir. 1996)   Cited 8 times
    Holding that a company policy violated the Act by prohibiting employees from discussing employment conditions with the company's clients.

  7. CPS Chemical Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    160 F.3d 150 (3d Cir. 1998)   Cited 6 times
    Holding that neither differences in size, bylaws, and internal procedures, nor the transfer and commingling of assets was sufficient to demonstrate a discontinuity of representation

  8. Uniroyal Technology Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    151 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 1998)   Cited 2 times
    Noting that union activist's “glowing performance reviews” and willingness to fill in on overtime shifts factored into the analysis of whether union activity was a motivating factor in discharge