Washington Adventist Hospital, Inc.

9 Cited authorities

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
Labor Bd. v. Washington Aluminum Co.
370 U.S. 9 (1962) Cited 206 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that certain employee conduct crosses the line from protected activity to "indefensible" conduct that loses NLRA protections
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
Labor Board v. Electrical Workers
346 U.S. 464 (1953) Cited 125 times 41 Legal Analyses
Upholding discharge where employees publicly disparaged quality of employer's product, with no discernible relationship to pending labor dispute
Prill v. N.L.R.B
755 F.2d 941 (D.C. Cir. 1985) Cited 80 times 3 Legal Analyses
In Prill v. NLRB, 755 F.2d 941, 948 (D.C. Cir. 1985), the D.C. Circuit remanded a case to the agency because "a regulation [was] based on an incorrect view of applicable law."
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”
Shelly & Anderson Furniture Manufacturing Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
497 F.2d 1200 (9th Cir. 1974) Cited 20 times
In Shelly Anderson Furniture Manufacturing Co. v. NLRB, 497 F.2d 1200 (9th Cir. 1974), we identified the four elements essential to protected status of concerted activity.
Can-Tex Industries v. N.L.R.B
683 F.2d 1183 (8th Cir. 1982)
No. 81-1730. Submitted January 11, 1982. Decided July 21, 1982. House, Holmes Jewell, P. A., Little Rock, Ark., Russell Gunter, Little Rock, Ark., for petitioner. William Wachter, Elaine Patrick, Attys., N.L.R.B., William A. Lubbers, Gen. Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy Gen. Counsel, Robert E. Allen, Acting Associate Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for respondent. Petition for review of order from the National Labor Relations Board. Before

Washington Adventist Hospital, Inc.

9 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."

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

Holding that certain employee conduct crosses the line from protected activity to "indefensible" conduct that loses NLRA protections

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

Upholding discharge where employees publicly disparaged quality of employer's product, with no discernible relationship to pending labor dispute

In Prill v. NLRB, 755 F.2d 941, 948 (D.C. Cir. 1985), the D.C. Circuit remanded a case to the agency because "a regulation [was] based on an incorrect view of applicable law."

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

In Shelly Anderson Furniture Manufacturing Co. v. NLRB, 497 F.2d 1200 (9th Cir. 1974), we identified the four elements essential to protected status of concerted activity.