Apogee Retail LLC d/b/a Unique Thrift Store

33 Cited authorities

  1. Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Assoc. of the United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co.

    463 U.S. 29 (1983)   Cited 6,739 times   60 Legal Analyses
    Holding that " `settled course of behavior embodies the agency's informed judgment that, by pursuing that course, it will carry out the policies [of applicable statutes or regulations]'"
  2. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.

    556 U.S. 502 (2009)   Cited 1,082 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that agencies may not change their policies "sub silentio "
  3. Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro

    136 S. Ct. 2117 (2016)   Cited 382 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that agency needed to provide "a more reasoned explanation for its decision to depart from its existing ... policy" in light of serious and ongoing industry reliance on prior policy when negotiating compensation packages
  4. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co.

    437 U.S. 214 (1978)   Cited 955 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a FOIA requestor's rights are neither “diminished” nor “enhanced” in light of a “particular, litigation-generated need for these materials”
  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. J. Weingarten, Inc.

    420 U.S. 251 (1975)   Cited 431 times   64 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an employer commits an unfair labor practice by compelling an employee to attend an investigatory meeting that could lead to discipline without allowing the employee to bring a union witness
  6. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc.

    388 U.S. 26 (1967)   Cited 321 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of discriminatory conduct as the Company failed to meet its burden of establishing legitimate motives for its conduct
  7. Labor Board v. Erie Resistor Corp.

    373 U.S. 221 (1963)   Cited 358 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Upholding Board decision prohibiting employer from granting super-seniority to strike-breakers because "[s]uper-seniority renders future bargaining difficult, if not impossible"
  8. Detroit Edison Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    440 U.S. 301 (1979)   Cited 225 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that NLRB erred in requiring employer to disclose performance test scores of employees as information for collective bargaining, regardless of employee consent, because of the sensitive nature of the test scores
  9. Eastex, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    437 U.S. 556 (1978)   Cited 196 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a newsletter that "urg[ed] employees to write their legislators to oppose incorporation of the state 'right-to-work' statute into a revised state constitution," "criticiz[ed] a Presidential veto of an increase in the federal minimum wage and urg[ed] employees to register to vote" was protected concerted activity
  10. 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."
  11. Section 158 - Unfair labor practices

    29 U.S.C. § 158   Cited 10,304 times   84 Legal Analyses
    Granting employees a wage increase without bargaining with Local 355
  12. Section 157 - Right of employees as to organization, collective bargaining, etc.

    29 U.S.C. § 157   Cited 3,294 times   97 Legal Analyses
    Granting employees the right to engage in or refrain from engaging in union activity
  13. Rule 615 - Excluding Witnesses from the Courtroom; Preventing an Excluded Witness's Access to Trial Testimony

    Fed. R. Evid. 615   Cited 1,388 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Finding that a motion to exclude a witness from the courtroom is generally grantable as of right and on the court's own motion
  14. Section 1604.11 - Sexual harassment

    29 C.F.R. § 1604.11   Cited 954 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding employers liable for co-worker harassment if "the employer (or its agents or supervisory employees) knows or should have known of the conduct, unless it can show that it took immediate and appropriate corrective action"