Remington Lodging & Hospitality, LLC and Hospitality Staffing Solutions, LLC

20 Cited authorities

Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius
567 U.S. 519 (2012) Cited 994 times 67 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 was not a valid exercise of the Commerce Clause power after focusing solely on whether it regulated "economic activity" without discussing the remaining Morrison factors
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."
Fibreboard Corp. v. Labor Board
379 U.S. 203 (1964) Cited 731 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "contracting out" of work traditionally performed by bargaining unit employees is a mandatory subject of bargaining under the NLRA
American Ship Bldg. v. Labor Board
380 U.S. 300 (1965) Cited 350 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that a lockout "for the sole purpose of bringing economic pressure to bear in support of [the employer's] legitimate bargaining position" is lawful
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc.
388 U.S. 26 (1967) Cited 322 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of discriminatory conduct as the Company failed to meet its burden of establishing legitimate motives for its conduct
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"
Caine v. Hardy
503 U.S. 936 (1992) Cited 103 times 1 Legal Analyses
Explaining the Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 68 L.Ed.2d 420 / Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 doctrine
Romano v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith
487 U.S. 1205 (1988) Cited 105 times 6 Legal Analyses
Upholding conclusion that employees classified as department managers did not meet executive exemption
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
Textile Workers v. Darlington Co.
380 U.S. 263 (1965) Cited 168 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employer has the absolute right, at least as far as the NLRA is concerned, to terminate his entire business for any reason

Remington Lodging & Hospitality, LLC and Hospitality Staffing Solutions, LLC

20 Cited authorities

Holding that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 was not a valid exercise of the Commerce Clause power after focusing solely on whether it regulated "economic activity" without discussing the remaining Morrison factors

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 "contracting out" of work traditionally performed by bargaining unit employees is a mandatory subject of bargaining under the NLRA

Holding that a lockout "for the sole purpose of bringing economic pressure to bear in support of [the employer's] legitimate bargaining position" is lawful

Holding that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of discriminatory conduct as the Company failed to meet its burden of establishing legitimate motives for its conduct

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

Explaining the Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 68 L.Ed.2d 420 / Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 doctrine

Upholding conclusion that employees classified as department managers did not meet executive exemption

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

Holding that an employer has the absolute right, at least as far as the NLRA is concerned, to terminate his entire business for any reason