Shamrock Foods Company

10 Cited authorities

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."
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
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Scrivener
405 U.S. 117 (1972) Cited 83 times
Holding that protection from retaliation for "fil[ing] charges or giv[ing] testimony" under the National Labor Relations Act extends to an employee who gave a written sworn statement to an NLRB examiner
Bally's Park Place Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
646 F.3d 929 (D.C. Cir. 2011) Cited 42 times
Finding unlawful motive where employee's discharge came only days after manager observed him at pro-union rally
W.F. Bolin Co. v. N.L.R.B
70 F.3d 863 (6th Cir. 1995) Cited 48 times
Holding that an "inference of improper employer motivation" is permitted when an employer has terminated an employee who acted as a leader in making complaints to management on behalf of himself or others, or has organized workers on employment issues
Reno Hilton Resorts v. N.L.R.B
196 F.3d 1275 (D.C. Cir. 1999) Cited 23 times
Concluding that "[t]he timing of the decision to contract out is suspect" where it "came on the heels of heavy union activity" and the employer knew of the purported rationale for its subcontracting decision long before it implemented that decision
Shamrock Foods Company v. N.L.R.B
346 F.3d 1130 (D.C. Cir. 2003) Cited 16 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "Wright Line is inapplicable to cases . . . in which the employer has discharged the employee because of alleged misconduct in the course of protected activity"
Cadbury Beverages v. N.L.R.B
160 F.3d 24 (D.C. Cir. 1998) Cited 20 times
Holding that it was “not incumbent on the general counsel to prove, nor on the Board to find, that the company's asserted nondiscriminatory reason of insubordination was pretextual ... although such a showing would have served as a conclusive rejection of [the company's] affirmative defense”
Shattuck Denn Mining Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
362 F.2d 466 (9th Cir. 1966) Cited 56 times
Upholding Board's determination that discharge for insubordination was pretextual where employer "refused to discharge" another employee also accused of insubordination
Rule 611 - Mode and Order of Examining Witnesses and Presenting Evidence
Fed. R. Evid. 611 Cited 1,937 times 7 Legal Analyses
Granting trial judge broad discretion to control witness examination

Shamrock Foods Company

10 Cited authorities

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

Holding that protection from retaliation for "fil[ing] charges or giv[ing] testimony" under the National Labor Relations Act extends to an employee who gave a written sworn statement to an NLRB examiner

Finding unlawful motive where employee's discharge came only days after manager observed him at pro-union rally

Holding that an "inference of improper employer motivation" is permitted when an employer has terminated an employee who acted as a leader in making complaints to management on behalf of himself or others, or has organized workers on employment issues

Concluding that "[t]he timing of the decision to contract out is suspect" where it "came on the heels of heavy union activity" and the employer knew of the purported rationale for its subcontracting decision long before it implemented that decision

Holding that "Wright Line is inapplicable to cases . . . in which the employer has discharged the employee because of alleged misconduct in the course of protected activity"

Holding that it was “not incumbent on the general counsel to prove, nor on the Board to find, that the company's asserted nondiscriminatory reason of insubordination was pretextual ... although such a showing would have served as a conclusive rejection of [the company's] affirmative defense”

Upholding Board's determination that discharge for insubordination was pretextual where employer "refused to discharge" another employee also accused of insubordination

Granting trial judge broad discretion to control witness examination