Quality Mechanical Insulation

8 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."
National Labor Rel. B. v. Kentucky R. Comm. C
532 U.S. 706 (2001) Cited 180 times 29 Legal Analyses
Holding that the burden of proving a statutory exception generally falls on the party who claims a benefit
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Yeshiva University
444 U.S. 672 (1980) Cited 183 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that all faculty members are managers for purposes of federal labor law even though they lack any legal instruments of control
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"
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
Bourne v. N.L.R.B
332 F.2d 47 (2d Cir. 1964) Cited 93 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Bourne, we held that interrogation which does not contain express threats is not an unfair labor practice unless certain "fairly severe standards" are met showing that the very fact of interrogation was coercive.
Intern. Union of Operating Eng'rs v. N.L.R.B
325 F.3d 818 (7th Cir. 2003) Cited 11 times
No. 02-1044. Argued September 27, 2002. Decided March 28, 2003. Petition for review of National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Brian C. Hlavin (Argued), Baum, Sigman, Auerbach, Pierson Neuman, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner. Elizabeth Kinney, National Labor Relations Board, Region 13, Chicago, IL, David Seid (Argued), National Labor Relations Board, Appellate Court, Enforcement Litigation, Washington, DC, Will J. Vance, National Labor Relations Board, Region 33, Peoria, IL, for Respondent. Michael E
N.L.R.B. v. Winco Petroleum Co.
668 F.2d 973 (8th Cir. 1982) Cited 11 times 1 Legal Analyses
No. 80-2147. Submitted September 14, 1981. Decided January 20, 1982. Rehearing Denied February 23, 1982. Robert Sewell, Ruah D. Lahey, Attys., William A. Lubbers, Gen. Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy Gen. Counsel, Robert E. Allen, Acting Associate Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., for petitioner. Richard E. Jaudes, Bradley S. Hiles, Peper, Martin, Jensen, Maichel and Hetlage, St. Louis, Mo., for respondent Cooper Oil Co., Inc. Petition for enforcement of

Quality Mechanical Insulation

8 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 the burden of proving a statutory exception generally falls on the party who claims a benefit

Holding that all faculty members are managers for purposes of federal labor law even though they lack any legal instruments of control

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"

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

In Bourne, we held that interrogation which does not contain express threats is not an unfair labor practice unless certain "fairly severe standards" are met showing that the very fact of interrogation was coercive.