§

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

368 N.L.R.B. 146 (N.L.R.B. 2019)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

11 Cited authorities

  1. 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."

  2. In-N-Out Burger, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    894 F.3d 707 (5th Cir. 2018)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 17-60241 07-06-2018 IN-N-OUT BURGER, INCORPORATED, Petitioner Cross-Respondent v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent Cross-Petitioner Bruce J. Sarchet, Littler Mendelson, Sacramento, Edward F. Berbarie, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Dallas, for Petitioner Cross-Respondent. Linda Dreeben, Esq., Deputy Associate General Counsel, Elizabeth Ann Heaney, Esq., National Labor Relations Board Appellate & Supreme Court Litigation Branch, Washington, Mischa Kristian Bauermeister, Esq., Timothy L. Watson

  3. Boch Imports, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    826 F.3d 558 (1st Cir. 2016)   Cited 9 times
    Rejecting employer's reliance on W San Diego

  4. S. New Eng. Tel. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    793 F.3d 93 (D.C. Cir. 2015)   Cited 4 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Invoking t-shirt's “straightforward” message and employer's consequently reasonable belief as to the impact of that message on customer relations

  5. Medco Health Solutions of Las Vegas, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    701 F.3d 710 (D.C. Cir. 2012)   Cited 2 times
    Concluding that employer satisfied its burden of establishing special circumstances to justify ban on particular t-shirt mocking company program

  6. Pergament United Sales, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    920 F.2d 130 (2d Cir. 1990)   Cited 20 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "due process is satisfied when a complaint gives a respondent fair notice . . . and when the conduct implicated in the alleged violation has been fully and fairly litigated"

  7. United Parcel Service v. N.L.R.B

    41 F.3d 1068 (6th Cir. 1994)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In United Parcel Serv. v. NLRB, 41 F.3d 1068 (6th Cir. 1994), we held that the employer's refusal to allow employees to wear union pins, while allowing the wearing of other pins, did not constitute discrimination in violation of Section(s) 8(a)(1).

  8. Davison-Paxon, Div. of R. H. Macy v. N.L.R.B

    462 F.2d 364 (5th Cir. 1972)   Cited 16 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Applying special circumstances approach to rule banning large and conspicuous button on sales floor

  9. Fabri-Tek, Incorporated v. N.L.R.B

    352 F.2d 577 (8th Cir. 1965)   Cited 17 times
    Upholding employer's objection to employees wearing IBEW vari-vue buttons when employer did not ban all buttons

  10. N.L.R.B. v. Floridan Hotel of Tampa, Inc.

    318 F.2d 545 (5th Cir. 1963)   Cited 11 times

    No. 20081. June 7, 1963. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Hans J. Lehmann, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. L. Robert Frank, Tampa, Fla., for respondent. Before RIVES, LEWIS, and BELL, Circuit Judges. Of the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation. GRIFFIN B. BELL, Circuit Judge. This case presents a novel question: May an employer with no discriminatory purpose prohibit the wearing of pins indicating union membership or status