Weis Markets, Inc.

19 Cited authorities

Board of Regents v. Roth
408 U.S. 564 (1972) Cited 14,974 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that where a public employee's appointment terminated on a particular date and there was no provision for renewal after that date, the employee "did not have a property interest sufficient to require . . . a hearing when [the officials] declined to renew his contract of employment."
Bill Johnson's Restaurants, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
461 U.S. 731 (1983) Cited 984 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that the NLRB could not bar an employer from pursuing a well-grounded lawsuit for damages under state law
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. Gissel Packing Co.
395 U.S. 575 (1969) Cited 1,036 times 71 Legal Analyses
Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"
Lechmere, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
502 U.S. 527 (1992) Cited 156 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that Board erred in finding that employer should have allowed union on its premises because it had no other way to reach its target audience, inasmuch as in reaching its decision the Board misconstrued prior Supreme Court precedent
Labor Board v. Babcock Wilcox Co.
351 U.S. 105 (1956) Cited 294 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Board could not require an employer to allow non-employee union representatives to enter the employer's parking lot
Labor Board v. Parts Co.
375 U.S. 405 (1964) Cited 213 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Act “prohibits not only intrusive threats and promises but also conduct immediately favorable to employees which is undertaken with the express purpose of impinging upon their freedom of choice for or against unionization and is reasonably calculated to have that effect.”
Epstein Family Partnership v. Kmart Corp.
13 F.3d 762 (3d Cir. 1994) Cited 96 times
Holding that "[b]road, non-specific language" in an order does not give a party "fair notice of what conduct will risk contempt" and thus cannot support imposition of sanctions
O'Neil's Markets v. United Food
95 F.3d 733 (8th Cir. 1996) Cited 12 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that employer cannot exclude handbillers unless they interfere with the right of employer, employees and customers to use the easement property
Northeast Women's Center v. McMonagle
670 F. Supp. 1300 (E.D. Pa. 1987) Cited 19 times
Applying Pennsylvania law

Weis Markets, Inc.

19 Cited authorities

Holding that where a public employee's appointment terminated on a particular date and there was no provision for renewal after that date, the employee "did not have a property interest sufficient to require . . . a hearing when [the officials] declined to renew his contract of employment."

Holding that the NLRB could not bar an employer from pursuing a well-grounded lawsuit for damages under state law

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 a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"

Holding that Board erred in finding that employer should have allowed union on its premises because it had no other way to reach its target audience, inasmuch as in reaching its decision the Board misconstrued prior Supreme Court precedent

Holding that the Board could not require an employer to allow non-employee union representatives to enter the employer's parking lot

Holding that the Act “prohibits not only intrusive threats and promises but also conduct immediately favorable to employees which is undertaken with the express purpose of impinging upon their freedom of choice for or against unionization and is reasonably calculated to have that effect.”

Holding that "[b]road, non-specific language" in an order does not give a party "fair notice of what conduct will risk contempt" and thus cannot support imposition of sanctions

Holding that employer cannot exclude handbillers unless they interfere with the right of employer, employees and customers to use the easement property

Applying Pennsylvania law