Trey Harlin P.C.

12 Cited authorities

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Transportation Management Corp.
462 U.S. 393 (1983) Cited 657 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. City Disposal Systems, Inc.
465 U.S. 822 (1984) Cited 206 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that a "lone employee's invocation of a right grounded in his collective-bargaining agreement is . . . a concerted activity in a very real sense" because the employee is in effect reminding his employer of the power of the group that brought about the agreement and that could be reharnessed if the employer refuses to respect the employee's objection
Romano v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith
487 U.S. 1205 (1988) Cited 107 times 6 Legal Analyses
Upholding conclusion that employees classified as department managers did not meet executive exemption
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"
McPc Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
813 F.3d 475 (3d Cir. 2016) Cited 18 times
Distinguishing Wright Line from the framework established in N.L.R.B. v. Burnup & Sims, Inc., 379 U.S. 21, 23, 85 S.Ct. 171, 13 L.Ed.2d 1
Citizens Inv. Servs. Corp. v. N.L.R.B
430 F.3d 1195 (D.C. Cir. 2005) Cited 12 times
Rejecting an employer's proffered “affirmative defenses” for a disciplinary decision, in part, because “there was substantial evidence” that they were “pretextual”
Prill v. N.L.R.B
835 F.2d 1481 (D.C. Cir. 1987) Cited 27 times 8 Legal Analyses
Recognizing that an employee takes concerted action “when he acts with the actual participation or on the authority of his co-workers”
JCR Hotel, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
342 F.3d 837 (8th Cir. 2003) Cited 9 times
Holding that § 8 prohibits an employer from discharging an employee for conduct the employer believes to be protected concerted activity
Ewing v. N.L.R.B
861 F.2d 353 (2d Cir. 1988) Cited 23 times
Approving the Meyers II rule
Section 557 - Initial decisions; conclusiveness; review by agency; submissions by parties; contents of decisions; record
5 U.S.C. § 557 Cited 756 times 6 Legal Analyses
Providing that in an administrative appeal, the agency "has all the powers which it would have in making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule"

Trey Harlin P.C.

12 Cited authorities

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."

Upholding conclusion that employees classified as department managers did not meet executive exemption

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"

Distinguishing Wright Line from the framework established in N.L.R.B. v. Burnup & Sims, Inc., 379 U.S. 21, 23, 85 S.Ct. 171, 13 L.Ed.2d 1

Rejecting an employer's proffered “affirmative defenses” for a disciplinary decision, in part, because “there was substantial evidence” that they were “pretextual”

Recognizing that an employee takes concerted action “when he acts with the actual participation or on the authority of his co-workers”

Holding that § 8 prohibits an employer from discharging an employee for conduct the employer believes to be protected concerted activity

Approving the Meyers II rule

Providing that in an administrative appeal, the agency "has all the powers which it would have in making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule"