Capitol EMI Music

18 Cited authorities

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."
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co.
395 U.S. 575 (1969) Cited 1,033 times 66 Legal Analyses
Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"
Boire v. Greyhound Corp.
376 U.S. 473 (1964) Cited 426 times 3 Legal Analyses
Finding status of employer as independent contractor is immaterial because focus of joint employment inquiry is on employees, not employers
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
Trevino v. Celanese Corp.
701 F.2d 397 (5th Cir. 1983) Cited 533 times
Holding that “[S]uperficially distinct entities may be exposed to liability upon a finding that they represent a single, integrated enterprise: a single employer.”
McKenzie v. Davenport-Harris Funeral Home
834 F.2d 930 (11th Cir. 1987) Cited 386 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a voluntary stipulation of dismissal "must be considered without prejudice because it was not expressly provided for in the document"
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
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Browning-Ferris Industries of Pennsylvania, Inc.
691 F.2d 1117 (3d Cir. 1982) Cited 339 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that joint employer situation exists only when "two or more employers exert significant control over the same employees . . . [where] they share or co-determine those matters governing essential terms and conditions of employment"
Carrier Corp. v. N.L.R.B
768 F.2d 778 (6th Cir. 1985) Cited 76 times
Holding that companies are joint employers when "two or more employers exert significant control over the same employees-where from the evidence it can be shown that they share or co-determine those matters governing essential terms and conditions of employment"
Turnbull Cone Baking Co. v. N.L.R.B
778 F.2d 292 (6th Cir. 1985) Cited 51 times
In Turnbull Cone, we unequivocally established that "[c]ircumstantial evidence alone may be sufficient" to prove a section 8(a)(3) transgression.
Section 6621 - Determination of rate of interest
26 U.S.C. § 6621 Cited 1,862 times 23 Legal Analyses
Applying a higher interest rate to past liabilities resulting from tax-motivated transactions

Capitol EMI Music

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

Finding status of employer as independent contractor is immaterial because focus of joint employment inquiry is on employees, not employers

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

Holding that “[S]uperficially distinct entities may be exposed to liability upon a finding that they represent a single, integrated enterprise: a single employer.”

Holding that a voluntary stipulation of dismissal "must be considered without prejudice because it was not expressly provided for in the document"

Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act

Holding that joint employer situation exists only when "two or more employers exert significant control over the same employees . . . [where] they share or co-determine those matters governing essential terms and conditions of employment"

Holding that companies are joint employers when "two or more employers exert significant control over the same employees-where from the evidence it can be shown that they share or co-determine those matters governing essential terms and conditions of employment"

In Turnbull Cone, we unequivocally established that "[c]ircumstantial evidence alone may be sufficient" to prove a section 8(a)(3) transgression.

Applying a higher interest rate to past liabilities resulting from tax-motivated transactions