§

St. Barnabas Hospital

346 N.L.R.B. 731 (N.L.R.B. 2006)
St. Barnabas Hospital

7 Cited authorities

  1. Tubari Ltd., Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    959 F.2d 451 (3d Cir. 1992)   Cited 56 times
    Holding that where employee has not exercised reasonable diligence in efforts to secure employment, employer has established that employee did not properly mitigate damages

  2. N.L.R.B. v. Mastro Plastics Corporation

    354 F.2d 170 (2d Cir. 1965)   Cited 96 times
    In Mastro, the relatives of two deceased discriminatees had testified as to the discriminatees' diligent searches for work.

  3. N.L.R.B. v. Brown Root, Inc.

    311 F.2d 447 (8th Cir. 1963)   Cited 71 times
    In N.L.R.B. v. Brown Root, Inc., 311 F.2d 447, 454 (C.A. 8), it is said that "in a back pay proceeding the burden is upon the General Counsel to show the gross amounts of back pay due.

  4. N.L.R.B. v. Miami Coca-Cola Bottling Company

    360 F.2d 569 (5th Cir. 1966)   Cited 51 times
    Permitting "non-deduction of supplemental earnings . . . where an employee who had spare-time earnings prior to discharge from his regular job continued in the same spare-time job during his period of discharge," and further holding that as long as employee was "moonlighting before his unlawful discharge," amounts earned in any "spare time employment" should not be used to reduce back-pay award

  5. N.L.R.B. v. Arduini Manufacturing Corp.

    394 F.2d 420 (1st Cir. 1968)   Cited 24 times
    Holding that plaintiffs delay of several days in accepting a job offer demonstrated a lack of reasonable diligence in mitigating damages and tolled plaintiffs right to backpay

  6. Angle v. N.L.R.B

    683 F.2d 1296 (10th Cir. 1982)   Cited 7 times
    Granting the Board's order for enforcement where employer did not present necessary "sufficient credible evidence" to support assertions that Board's calculations were wrong

  7. National Labor Rel. Board v. Cashman Auto Co.

    223 F.2d 832 (1st Cir. 1955)   Cited 20 times
    In NLRB v. Cashman Auto Co., 223 F.2d 832, 836 (1st Cir. 1955), the First Circuit noted, over half a century ago, that the principle of mitigation of damages does not require success; it only requires an honest good faith effort by the complaining party.