Sears, Roebuck & Co.
5 Cited authorities
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Transportation Management Corp.
462 U.S. 393 (1983) Cited 648 times 11 Legal AnalysesHolding 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."
Labor Board v. Parts Co.
375 U.S. 405 (1964) Cited 212 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that the Act “prohibits not only intrusive threats and promises but also conduct immediately favorable to employees which is undertaken with the express purpose of impinging upon their freedom of choice for or against unionization and is reasonably calculated to have that effect.”
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 AnalysesHolding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act
N.L.R.B. v. Styletek, Div. of Pandel-Bradford
520 F.2d 275 (1st Cir. 1975) Cited 29 timesNo. 75-1017. Argued June 3, 1975. Decided August 6, 1975. Margery E. Lieber, Atty., with whom Peter G. Nash, Gen. Counsel, John S. Irving, Deputy Gen. Counsel, Patrick Hardin, Associate Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, and John H. Ferguson, Atty., were on brief, for petitioner. George H. Foley, Boston, Mass., with whom Hale Dorr, Boston, Mass., was on brief, for respondent. Petition for review from the National Labor Relations Board. Before COFFIN, Chief Judge, McENTEE
N.L.R.B. v. Malta Const. Co.
806 F.2d 1009 (11th Cir. 1986) Cited 15 timesApplying special circumstances approach to rule allowing union insignia on clothing and personal property but not on hardhats