Alternative Energy Applications, Inc.

18 Cited authorities

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Transportation Management Corp.
462 U.S. 393 (1983) Cited 650 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
Republic Aviation Corp. v. Board
324 U.S. 793 (1945) Cited 494 times 34 Legal Analyses
Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."
Romano v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith
487 U.S. 1205 (1988) Cited 105 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 356 times 46 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act
Teamsters Local v. Labor Board
365 U.S. 667 (1961) Cited 174 times
Holding that the Board may not dictate specific procedures and rules that a union must adopt, not that the Board errs when it determines that a union engaged in unfair labor practices by failing to operate in accordance with objective criteria
Bally's Park Place Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
646 F.3d 929 (D.C. Cir. 2011) Cited 42 times
Finding unlawful motive where employee's discharge came only days after manager observed him at pro-union rally
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."
Aroostook County v. N.L.R.B
81 F.3d 209 (D.C. Cir. 1996) Cited 18 times 1 Legal Analyses
Upholding NLRB's jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. § 158, part of the National Labor Relations Act, over an employer
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”

Alternative Energy Applications, Inc.

18 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

Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."

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

Holding that the Board may not dictate specific procedures and rules that a union must adopt, not that the Board errs when it determines that a union engaged in unfair labor practices by failing to operate in accordance with objective criteria

Finding unlawful motive where employee's discharge came only days after manager observed him at pro-union rally

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."

Upholding NLRB's jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. § 158, part of the National Labor Relations Act, over an employer

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