§

Rainbow Medical Transportation, LLC

365 NLRB No. 80 (N.L.R.B. 2017)
Rainbow Medical Transportation, LLC

17 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. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. City Disposal Systems, Inc.

    465 U.S. 822 (1984)   Cited 206 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "lone employee's invocation of a right grounded in his collective-bargaining agreement is . . . a concerted activity in a very real sense" because the employee is in effect reminding his employer of the power of the group that brought about the agreement and that could be reharnessed if the employer refuses to respect the employee's objection

  3. Eastex, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    437 U.S. 556 (1978)   Cited 196 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a newsletter that "urg[ed] employees to write their legislators to oppose incorporation of the state 'right-to-work' statute into a revised state constitution," "criticiz[ed] a Presidential veto of an increase in the federal minimum wage and urg[ed] employees to register to vote" was protected concerted activity

  4. Romano v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith

    487 U.S. 1205 (1988)   Cited 107 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Upholding conclusion that employees classified as department managers did not meet executive exemption

  5. 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

  6. Prill v. N.L.R.B

    755 F.2d 941 (D.C. Cir. 1985)   Cited 80 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Prill v. NLRB, 755 F.2d 941, 948 (D.C. Cir. 1985), the D.C. Circuit remanded a case to the agency because "a regulation [was] based on an incorrect view of applicable law."

  7. Ozburn-Hessey Logistics, LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    833 F.3d 210 (D.C. Cir. 2016)   Cited 23 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding pretext where the company's discharge decision was "inconsistent with" other disciplinary decisions and "deviated from the Company's progressive disciplinary policy"

  8. Stephens Media, LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    677 F.3d 1241 (D.C. Cir. 2012)   Cited 19 times
    Applying the Bennett standard to cross-petitions for enforcement and review under Section 10(e) and 10(f)

  9. Guardsmark, LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    475 F.3d 369 (D.C. Cir. 2007)   Cited 17 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Striking down rule that only allowed employees to complain internally

  10. Autonation, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    801 F.3d 767 (7th Cir. 2015)   Cited 7 times
    Finding employer's claim that it fired employee due to job abandonment to be a pretext because employer knew that employee had filed for unemployment benefits and was under the impression that he had already been terminated and yet the company did nothing to correct the employee's alleged misimpression