Property Markets Group

28 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."
Director, Off. of Work. Comp. v. Greenwich Collieries
512 U.S. 267 (1994) Cited 445 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that, under the Administrative Procedure Act, the burden of proof encompasses the burden of persuasion; when the evidence is evenly balanced, the party with the burden must lose
Longshoremen v. Davis
476 U.S. 380 (1986) Cited 319 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that where "a state court . . . ha no subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue . . ., any judgment issued by the state court will be void ab initio"
Machinists Local v. Labor Board
362 U.S. 411 (1960) Cited 276 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that “a finding of violation which is inescapably grounded on events predating the limitations period” is untimely
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Health Care & Retirement Corp. of America
511 U.S. 571 (1994) Cited 97 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the Board's test is inconsistent with both the statutory language and th[e] Court's precedents"
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
Mohan v. Kerr
400 U.S. 833 (1970) Cited 97 times
Finding no abuse of discretion in district court's denial of a jury request made eighteen months after removal and some two months before trial
N.L.R.B. v. McCullough Environmental Serv
5 F.3d 923 (5th Cir. 1993) Cited 98 times
Concluding that statement that "things were going to get a lot tougher around here" upon unionization constituted a threat
Southwest Merchandising Corp. v. N.L.R.B
53 F.3d 1334 (D.C. Cir. 1995) Cited 38 times
Holding that the jury could infer pretext and unlawful discrimination from an employer's shifting and inconsistent explanations for its action
N.L.R.B. v. Berger Transfer Storage Co.
678 F.2d 679 (7th Cir. 1982) Cited 52 times
Observing that "when the questions asked `viewed and interpreted as the employee must have understood the questioning and its ramifications, could reasonably coerce or intimidate the employee with regard to union activities,' a violation has been established"

Property Markets Group

28 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, under the Administrative Procedure Act, the burden of proof encompasses the burden of persuasion; when the evidence is evenly balanced, the party with the burden must lose

Holding that where "a state court . . . ha no subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue . . ., any judgment issued by the state court will be void ab initio"

Holding that “a finding of violation which is inescapably grounded on events predating the limitations period” is untimely

Holding that "the Board's test is inconsistent with both the statutory language and th[e] Court's precedents"

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

Finding no abuse of discretion in district court's denial of a jury request made eighteen months after removal and some two months before trial

Concluding that statement that "things were going to get a lot tougher around here" upon unionization constituted a threat

Holding that the jury could infer pretext and unlawful discrimination from an employer's shifting and inconsistent explanations for its action

Observing that "when the questions asked `viewed and interpreted as the employee must have understood the questioning and its ramifications, could reasonably coerce or intimidate the employee with regard to union activities,' a violation has been established"