§
Shaw, Inc.

9 Cited authorities

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

    462 U.S. 393 (1983)   Cited 655 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. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co.

    395 U.S. 575 (1969)   Cited 1,036 times   71 Legal Analyses
    Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"

  3. 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

  4. Ezekwo v. Amer. Bd. of I. M

    173 F.3d 844 (2d Cir. 1999)   Cited 161 times
    Finding that plaintiff "failed to effect proper service" and noting that "'leave and mail' service under Section 308 is ineffective where a plaintiff does not file proof of service with the clerk within twenty days of the date on which the process server mailed the summons and complaint"

  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. FES

    301 F.3d 83 (3d Cir. 2002)   Cited 50 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding issue not exhausted where the "tenor" of petitioner's objection to the Board was "purely factual," but the tenor of the objection on appeal was legal

  6. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Al Bryant, Inc.

    711 F.2d 543 (3d Cir. 1983)   Cited 62 times
    Finding that "the frequent interchange of craftsman" between the two companies is "substantial evidence to support" centralized labor relations control

  7. TIC-The Industrial Co. Southeast, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    126 F.3d 334 (D.C. Cir. 1997)   Cited 10 times
    Holding that a "single, isolated comment" by a supervisor indicating the employer's preference for non-union hiring "d[oes] not constitute substantial evidence of restraint, coercion, or interference with employees exercising protected rights under section 8"

  8. N.L.R.B. v. Windemuller Elec., Inc.

    34 F.3d 384 (6th Cir. 1994)   Cited 5 times

    No. 92-6240. Argued August 3, 1993. Decided September 14, 1994. Aileen A. Armstrong, Dep. Asso. Gen. Counsel, Peter Winkler (briefed), Margaret E. Luke (argued and briefed), N.L.R.B., Office of Gen. Counsel, Washington, DC, Stephen M. Glasser, Acting Regional Dir., N.L.R.B., Detroit, MI, for N.L.R.B. Peter J. Kok (argued and briefed), Elizabeth M. McIntyre (briefed), Miller, Johnson, Snell Cumminskey, Grand Rapids, MI, for Windemuller Elec., Inc. Construction Employment Services, Inc., pro se. Before:

  9. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Universal Camera

    179 F.2d 749 (2d Cir. 1950)   Cited 24 times

    No. 54, Docket 21395. Argued December 6, 1949. Decided January 10, 1950. A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C., David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, Ruth Weyand, Asst. Gen. Counsel, William J. Avrutis, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Kaye, Scholer, Fierman Hays, New York City, Frederick R. Livingston, New York City, for respondent. On petition of the National Labor Relations Board for an order, "enforcing" an order of the Board to "cease