Starbucks Coffee Company

19 Cited authorities

Republic Aviation Corp. v. Board
324 U.S. 793 (1945) Cited 495 times 34 Legal Analyses
Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."
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
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"
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Fant Milling Co.
360 U.S. 301 (1959) Cited 106 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that an untimely allegation of an unlawful unilateral wage increase was sufficiently related to a timely refusal-to-bargain charge, because the wage increase "largely influenced" the Board's finding that an unlawful refusal to bargain had occurred
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
Laro Maintenance Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
56 F.3d 224 (D.C. Cir. 1995) Cited 23 times
Inferring discriminatory motive from, inter alia, an employer's professed desire to hire the best qualified workers and the employer's subsequent decision to hire employees with no relevant experience over union members with experience
Consolidated Diesel Co. v. N.L.R.B
263 F.3d 345 (4th Cir. 2001) Cited 15 times 1 Legal Analyses
Recognizing that "[t]here would be nothing left of [the Act's] rights if every time employees exercised them in a way that was somehow offensive to someone," they were subject to the threat of discipline
Frazier Industrial Co., Inc. v. N.L.R.B
213 F.3d 750 (D.C. Cir. 2000) Cited 15 times
Finding that employment application which stated that “false information, omissions, or misrepresentations may result in a discharge of the employee” was insufficient to establish that the plaintiff would have been discharged for conduct at issue, and that company policy manual specifying that falsification of records would warrant immediate dismissal was immaterial where manual had not been distributed to employee prior to employee's termination
Aroostook County v. N.L.R.B
81 F.3d 209 (D.C. Cir. 1996) Cited 18 times 1 Legal Analyses
Upholding NLRB's jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. § 158, part of the National Labor Relations Act, over an employer
N.L.R.B. v. W. C. McQuaide, Inc.
552 F.2d 519 (3d Cir. 1977) Cited 40 times
In McQuaide, supra, we stated flatly: "Rather than focus on either the subjective intent of the striker or the perception of the `victim,' we adopt an objective standard to determine whether conduct constitutes a threat sufficiently egregious to justify" the imposition of sanctions by the employer.

Starbucks Coffee Company

19 Cited authorities

Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."

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"

Holding that an untimely allegation of an unlawful unilateral wage increase was sufficiently related to a timely refusal-to-bargain charge, because the wage increase "largely influenced" the Board's finding that an unlawful refusal to bargain had occurred

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

Inferring discriminatory motive from, inter alia, an employer's professed desire to hire the best qualified workers and the employer's subsequent decision to hire employees with no relevant experience over union members with experience

Recognizing that "[t]here would be nothing left of [the Act's] rights if every time employees exercised them in a way that was somehow offensive to someone," they were subject to the threat of discipline

Upholding NLRB's jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. § 158, part of the National Labor Relations Act, over an employer

In McQuaide, supra, we stated flatly: "Rather than focus on either the subjective intent of the striker or the perception of the `victim,' we adopt an objective standard to determine whether conduct constitutes a threat sufficiently egregious to justify" the imposition of sanctions by the employer.