Smithfield Foods, Inc.

27 Cited authorities

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
509 U.S. 579 (1993) Cited 27,088 times 238 Legal Analyses
Holding that a trial judge must ensure that all admitted expert testimony "is not only relevant, but reliable"
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael
526 U.S. 137 (1999) Cited 12,978 times 31 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Daubert gatekeeping standard applies not only to "scientific testimony" but also to "all expert testimony"
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."
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co.
395 U.S. 575 (1969) Cited 1,035 times 67 Legal Analyses
Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Wyman-Gordon Co.
394 U.S. 759 (1969) Cited 809 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding invalid a legislative rule developed in agency adjudication
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Yeshiva University
444 U.S. 672 (1980) Cited 183 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that all faculty members are managers for purposes of federal labor law even though they lack any legal instruments of control
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
Labor Board v. Burnup Sims
379 U.S. 21 (1964) Cited 106 times 21 Legal Analyses
Finding violation of § 8 "whatever the employer's motive"
N.L.R.B. v. McCullough Environmental Serv
5 F.3d 923 (5th Cir. 1993) Cited 98 times
Concluding that statement that "things were going to get a lot tougher around here" upon unionization constituted a threat
Bourne v. N.L.R.B
332 F.2d 47 (2d Cir. 1964) Cited 93 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Bourne, we held that interrogation which does not contain express threats is not an unfair labor practice unless certain "fairly severe standards" are met showing that the very fact of interrogation was coercive.

Smithfield Foods, Inc.

27 Cited authorities

Holding that a trial judge must ensure that all admitted expert testimony "is not only relevant, but reliable"

Holding that the Daubert gatekeeping standard applies not only to "scientific testimony" but also to "all expert testimony"

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 a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"

Holding invalid a legislative rule developed in agency adjudication

Holding that all faculty members are managers for purposes of federal labor law even though they lack any legal instruments of control

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

Finding violation of § 8 "whatever the employer's motive"

Concluding that statement that "things were going to get a lot tougher around here" upon unionization constituted a threat

In Bourne, we held that interrogation which does not contain express threats is not an unfair labor practice unless certain "fairly severe standards" are met showing that the very fact of interrogation was coercive.