Sweet Brook Transitional Care and Living Centers

19 Cited authorities

Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc.
530 U.S. 133 (2000) Cited 21,534 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that a "trier of fact can reasonably infer from the falsity of the explanation that the employer is dissembling to cover up a discriminatory purpose"
Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
340 U.S. 474 (1951) Cited 9,675 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "
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."
Beth Israel Hospital v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
437 U.S. 483 (1978) Cited 220 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that, in the context of solicitation rules, such circumstances are required to justify restrictions on solicitation during nonworking time
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
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.
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Remington Rand, Inc.
94 F.2d 862 (2d Cir. 1938) Cited 178 times
In National Labor Relations Board v. Remington Rand, 2 Cir., 94 F.2d 862, 869, the Board had ordered the employer to deal exclusively with a joint board which had brought the unfair labor practice charges involved in that case.
United Services Auto. Ass'n v. N.L.R.B
387 F.3d 908 (D.C. Cir. 2004) Cited 17 times
Applying Essex rule where company banned solicitation and distribution “at any time in the work area and only during nonworking hours in non-work areas”
Brockton Hosp. v. N.L.R.B
294 F.3d 100 (D.C. Cir. 2002) Cited 17 times
In Brockton Hospital, the hospital employer maintained a confidentiality policy providing that "[i]nformation concerning patients, [nurses], or hospital operations should not be discussed..., except strictly in connection with hospital business."
Local Joint Exec. Bd. v. National Labor rel
515 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2008) Cited 8 times
No. 05-75515. Argued and Submitted October 16, 2007. Filed January 28, 2008. Kristin Martin (argued), Richard G. McCracken, Davis, Cowell, Bowe, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for petitioner Local Joint Executive Board of Las Vegas. David A. Seid, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for the respondent. Brian Herman (argued), Mark J. Ricciardi, Fisher Phillips, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for intervenor Reorganized Aladdin Gaming, LLC. On Petition for Review of an Order of the National Labor

Sweet Brook Transitional Care and Living Centers

19 Cited authorities

Holding that a "trier of fact can reasonably infer from the falsity of the explanation that the employer is dissembling to cover up a discriminatory purpose"

Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "

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, in the context of solicitation rules, such circumstances are required to justify restrictions on solicitation during nonworking time

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

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.

In National Labor Relations Board v. Remington Rand, 2 Cir., 94 F.2d 862, 869, the Board had ordered the employer to deal exclusively with a joint board which had brought the unfair labor practice charges involved in that case.

Applying Essex rule where company banned solicitation and distribution “at any time in the work area and only during nonworking hours in non-work areas”

In Brockton Hospital, the hospital employer maintained a confidentiality policy providing that "[i]nformation concerning patients, [nurses], or hospital operations should not be discussed..., except strictly in connection with hospital business."