§
ADT, LLC

14 Cited authorities

  1. Litton Financial Printing Division v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    501 U.S. 190 (1991)   Cited 792 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where a court must determine the validity of an arbitration agreement, it "cannot avoid that duty" just because the court must decide an issue on the merits

  2. Berman Enterprises v. Local 333

    454 U.S. 965 (1981)   Cited 174 times
    Holding an "affiliates" clause much like the Coal Lands clause legal under rule of reason analysis

  3. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Acme Industrial Co.

    385 U.S. 432 (1967)   Cited 263 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Approving "discovery-type standard"

  4. N.L.R.B. v. Wright Line, a Div. of Wright Line, Inc.

    662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981)   Cited 356 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act

  5. St. George Warehouse, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    420 F.3d 294 (3d Cir. 2005)   Cited 36 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that under a substantial evidence standard of review, an administrative fact-finder's determinations on issues of credibility should not be reversed unless inherently incredible or patently unreasonable

  6. Vincent Industrial Plastics, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    209 F.3d 727 (D.C. Cir. 2000)   Cited 44 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Vincent Industrial, we directed the Board to premise every bargaining order on an "explicit[ balanc[ing][of] three considerations: (1) the employees' Section 7 rights [ 29 U.S.C. § 157]; (2) whether other purposes of the [NLRA] override the rights of employees to choose their bargaining representatives; and (3) whether alternative remedies are adequate to remedy the violations of the [NLRA]]."

  7. Regal Cinemas, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    317 F.3d 300 (D.C. Cir. 2003)   Cited 30 times
    Affirming the Board's finding of a Section 8 violation where the layoff was motivated by labor costs rather than technological advances

  8. Lee Lumber & Building Material Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    117 F.3d 1454 (D.C. Cir. 1997)   Cited 27 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Noting that, "[b]ecause affirmative bargaining orders interfere with the employee free choice that is a core principle of the Act," we "view them with suspicion" and demand special justification for them

  9. King Soopers, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    859 F.3d 23 (D.C. Cir. 2017)   Cited 5 times

    No. 16-1316 C/w 16-1367 06-09-2017 KING SOOPERS, INC., Petitioner v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent Raymond M. Deeny, Colorado Springs, CO, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Jonathon M. Watson, Denver, CO. Amy H. Ginn, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Richard F. Griffin, Jr., General Counsel, John H. Ferguson, Associate General Counsel, Linda Dreeben, Deputy Associate General Counsel, and Robert

  10. Palace Sports Entm't, Inc. v. NLRB

    411 F.3d 212 (D.C. Cir. 2005)   Cited 6 times

    No. 04-1261, 04-1276. Argued March 18, 2005. Decided May 31, 2005. On Petition for Review and Cross-Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Robert M. Vercruysse argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Gary S. Fealk. David A. Fleischer, Senior Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Arthur F. Rosenfeld, General Counsel, John H. Ferguson, Assistant General Counsel, Aileen A. Armstrong