§
Schaeff Inc.

18 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. 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

  3. N.L.R.B. v. Daniel Const. Co.

    731 F.2d 191 (4th Cir. 1984)   Cited 27 times
    Holding that contemporaneous section 8 violations provide evidence of an employer's anti-union animus in the discharge of a particular employee

  4. N.L.R.B. v. Rain-Ware, Inc.

    732 F.2d 1349 (7th Cir. 1984)   Cited 20 times
    Concluding that "[t]he timing of the layoffs and warehouse closing provides the strongest support for connecting anti-union sentiment with the layoffs," where the layoffs and warehouse closing closely followed a demand for union recognition

  5. United Dairy Farmers Co-op. Ass'n v. N.L.R.B

    633 F.2d 1054 (3d Cir. 1980)   Cited 20 times

    Nos. 79-1807, 79-1883. Argued May 23, 1980. Decided October 30, 1980. John Regis Valaw, James J. Flaherty (argued), Pittsburgh, Pa., Stephen J. Cabot, Pechner, Dorfman, Wolffe, Rounick Cabot, Philadelphia, Pa., for United Dairy Farmers Cooperative Association. Hugh J. Beins, Jonathan G. Axelrod (argued), Bethesda, Md., Louis B. Kushner, Rothman, Gordon, Foreman, Groudine, P. A., Pittsburgh, Pa., for Teamsters Local Union No. 205. Richard B. Bader (argued), Atty., William A. Lubbers, Gen. Counsel

  6. N.L.R.B. v. Ritchie Manufacturing Company

    354 F.2d 90 (8th Cir. 1966)   Cited 34 times

    No. 17978. December 14, 1965. As Corrected on Denial of Rehearing January 11, 1966. Gary Green, Attorney, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, and Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, on the brief, for petitioner. Rex J. Ryden, of Cartwright, Druker, Ryden Fagg, Marshalltown; Iowa, H.G. Cartwright, of Cartwright, Druker, Ryden Fagg, Marshalltown, Iowa, for respondent. Before VOGEL, Chief Judge, and VAN OOSTERHOUT and MEHAFFY

  7. N.L.R.B. v. First Nat. Bank of Pueblo

    623 F.2d 686 (10th Cir. 1980)   Cited 14 times
    Recognizing that such an inference is permissible but not permitting it in view of employee's very limited union activity

  8. Santa Fe Drilling Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    416 F.2d 725 (9th Cir. 1969)   Cited 25 times

    No. 22923. September 18, 1969. James N. Adler (argued) Roderick M. Hills, of Munger, Tolles, Hills Rickershauser, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner. Ronald Wm. Egnor (argued), Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Nancy M. Sherman, Atty., Washington, D.C., for respondent. Before CARTER and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges, and BYRNE, District Judge. Hon. William M. Byrne, Senior Judge, United States District Court for the Central

  9. Henning Cheadle, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    522 F.2d 1050 (7th Cir. 1975)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that the NLRA is violated if an employer acts against his employees in the belief that they have engaged in protected activities, whether or not they actually did so

  10. N.L.R.B. v. Oberle-Jordre Co., Div. of B.P

    777 F.2d 1119 (6th Cir. 1985)   Cited 3 times

    No. 84-5920. Argued October 9, 1985. Decided November 26, 1985. Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Karen Cordry, argued, Christian Schumann, Ann Jones (LEAD), for petitioner. Harold S. Freeman, Robert E. Kaplan, argued, Dinsmore Shohl, Cincinnati, Ohio, for respondent. Before MARTIN and WELLFORD, Circuit Judges, and WEICK, Senior Circuit Judge. BOYCE F. MARTIN, Jr., Circuit Judge. The National Labor Relations Board seeks enforcement of its order against Bishopric

  11. Rule 1006 - Summaries to Prove Content

    Fed. R. Evid. 1006   Cited 1,839 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Allowing a "summary, chart, or calculation to prove the content of voluminous writings, recordings, or photographs that cannot be conveniently examined in court."