§

Roseburg Forest Products Co.

368 N.L.R.B. 124 (N.L.R.B. 2019)
Roseburg Forest Products Co.

22 Cited authorities

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

    462 U.S. 393 (1983)   Cited 646 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. Linn v. Plant Guard Workers

    383 U.S. 53 (1966)   Cited 726 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding as preempted all defamation actions in labor disputes except those published with actual malice

  3. 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"

  4. 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

  5. N.L.R.B. v. Wright Line, a Div. of Wright Line, Inc.

    662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981)   Cited 355 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act

  6. Laurel Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

    502 U.S. 814 (1991)   Cited 78 times

    No. 90-1805. October 7, 1991, OCTOBER TERM, 1991. C.A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 924 F. 2d 539.

  7. Labor Board v. Electrical Workers

    346 U.S. 464 (1953)   Cited 125 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Upholding discharge where employees publicly disparaged quality of employer's product, with no discernible relationship to pending labor dispute

  8. Prill v. N.L.R.B

    755 F.2d 941 (D.C. Cir. 1985)   Cited 81 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."

  9. King Soopers, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    859 F.3d 23 (D.C. Cir. 2017)   Cited 4 times

    No. 16-1316 C/w 16-1367 06-09-2017 KING SOOPERS, INC., Petitioner v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent Raymond M. Deeny, Colorado Springs, CO, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Jonathon M. Watson, Denver, CO. Amy H. Ginn, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Richard F. Griffin, Jr., General Counsel, John H. Ferguson, Associate General Counsel, Linda Dreeben, Deputy Associate General Counsel, and Robert

  10. Plaza Auto Ctr., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    664 F.3d 286 (9th Cir. 2011)   Cited 7 times   5 Legal Analyses

    Nos. 10–72728 10–73125. 2011-12-19 PLAZA AUTO CENTER, INC., Petitioner/Cross–Respondent, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent/Cross–Petitioner. Stephanie R. Leach, Snell & Wilmer, L.L.P., Phoenix, AZ, for the petitioner. Jill A. Griffin and Kira Dellinger Vol, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for the respondent. QUIST Stephanie R. Leach, Snell & Wilmer, L.L.P., Phoenix, AZ, for the petitioner. Jill A. Griffin and Kira Dellinger Vol, National Labor Relations Board, Washington