§

Cadence Innovation, LLC

353 N.L.R.B. 703 (N.L.R.B. 2009)
Cadence Innovation, LLC

8 Cited authorities

  1. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Transportation Management Corp.

    462 U.S. 393 (1983)   Cited 651 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."

  2. 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

  3. Fedex Freight East, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    431 F.3d 1019 (7th Cir. 2005)   Cited 10 times
    Applying the Wright Line test

  4. Meijer, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Bd.

    130 F.3d 1209 (6th Cir. 1997)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that under the balancing test in Republic Aviation, 324 U.S. 793, 65 S.Ct. 982, 89 L.Ed. 1372, "employees have a right to wear union insignia" on employerowned uniforms

  5. LB B v. N.L.R.B

    232 F. App'x 270 (4th Cir. 2007)

    Nos. 06-1537, 06-1583, 06-1673. Argued: March 13, 2007. Decided: May 11, 2007. On Petitions for Review and Cross-application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. (29-CA-25511; 29-CA-25668; 29-CA-25762; 29-CA-25777; 29-CA-25779). ARGUED: Jennifer McDougal Miller, Wyrick, Robbins, Yates Ponton, Raleigh, North Carolina, for LB B Associates, Incorporated. Philip Adam Hostak, National Labor Relations Board, Office of the General Counsel, Washington, D.C., for the Board. Marty

  6. Dunning v. National Industries, Inc.

    720 F. Supp. 924 (M.D. Ala. 1989)   Cited 9 times
    Equating a retaliation claim with a reprisal claim

  7. N.L.R.B. v. Los Angeles New Hospital

    640 F.2d 1017 (9th Cir. 1981)   Cited 8 times

    No. 80-7073. Argued and Submitted November 5, 1980. Decided March 6, 1981. Susan L. Dolin, Richard M. Fischl, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Catherine Hagen, O'Melveny Myers, Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent. On Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Before WRIGHT and TANG, Circuit Judges, and HANSON, Senior District Judge. The Honorable William C. Hanson, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern and Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation

  8. N.L.R.B. v. Lumber and Mill Employers Ass'n

    736 F.2d 507 (9th Cir. 1984)

    No. 83-7117. Argued and Submitted April 10, 1984. Decided June 27, 1984. Howard Perlstein, NLRB, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. A.K. Abraham, Robert M. Cassel, Berman, Cassel Carter, San Francisco, Cal., for respondent. On Application for Enforcement of An Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Before SNEED and FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and BURNS, District Judge. Honorable James M. Burns, United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation. SNEED, Circuit Judge: