Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§
Security U.S.A.

4 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. Southwest Merchandising Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    53 F.3d 1334 (D.C. Cir. 1995)   Cited 38 times
    Holding that the jury could infer pretext and unlawful discrimination from an employer's shifting and inconsistent explanations for its action

  4. N.L.R.B. v. Hiney Printing Company

    733 F.2d 1170 (6th Cir. 1984)   Cited 4 times

    Nos. 83-5172, 83-5420. Argued April 2, 1984. Decided May 10, 1984. Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, Carol A. De Deo, Mendelssohn V. McLean (argued), Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Edward C. Kaminski (argued), Akron, Ohio, for respondent. Before EDWARDS and JONES, Circuit Judges, and GIBSON, District Judge. Honorable Benjamin F. Gibson, United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation. PER CURIAM. The sole issue in this case is presented by