Cinelease, Inc.

25 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"
Sure-Tan, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
467 U.S. 883 (1984) Cited 415 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that NLRB could order reinstatement with back pay as a remedy for constructive discharge
Labor Board v. Katz
369 U.S. 736 (1962) Cited 709 times 29 Legal Analyses
Holding that "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"
Rivera v. Nibco, Inc.
364 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) Cited 395 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding employee immigration status was not discoverable in a Title VII action because forcing employees to reveal such information could deter undocumented workers from filing complaints about labor and civil rights violations and the information was not relevant to the issue of liability
Labor Board v. Walton Mfg. Co.
369 U.S. 404 (1962) Cited 298 times
Explaining that the deferential standard of review is appropriate because the "[the ALJ] ... sees the witnesses and hears them testify, while the Board and the reviewing court look only at cold records"
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
Laurel Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
502 U.S. 814 (1991) Cited 78 times
No. 90-1805. October 7, 1991, OCTOBER TERM, 1991. C.A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 924 F. 2d 539.
Scott v. Stephen Dunn Assoc
241 F.3d 652 (9th Cir. 2001) Cited 41 times
Observing that "injunctive relief under section 10(j) is intended to preserve the status quo pending final action by the Board"
Bourne v. N.L.R.B
332 F.2d 47 (2d Cir. 1964) Cited 93 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Bourne, we held that interrogation which does not contain express threats is not an unfair labor practice unless certain "fairly severe standards" are met showing that the very fact of interrogation was coercive.
Section 160 - Prevention of unfair labor practices
29 U.S.C. § 160 Cited 7,049 times 23 Legal Analyses
Finding that the procedures for unfair labor practice cases mandated by R.C. 4117.12 and 4117.13 are substantively identical to those established in NLRA to govern unfair labor practice cases before NLRB
Section 1324b - Unfair immigration-related employment practices
8 U.S.C. § 1324b Cited 122 times 62 Legal Analyses
Permitting the administrative law judge to award an attorney's fee to the prevailing party "if the losing party's argument is without reasonable foundation in law and fact"
Section 44.200 - Unfair immigration-related employment practices
28 C.F.R. § 44.200 1 Legal Analyses
(a) (1)General. It is an unfair immigration-related employment practice under 8 U.S.C. 1324b(a)(1) for a person or other entity to intentionally discriminate or to engage in a pattern or practice of intentional discrimination against any individual (other than an unauthorized alien) with respect to the hiring, or recruitment or referral for a fee, of the individual for employment or the discharging of the individual from employment- (i) Because of such individual's national origin; or (ii) In the

Cinelease, Inc.

25 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"

Holding that NLRB could order reinstatement with back pay as a remedy for constructive discharge

Holding that "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"

Finding employee immigration status was not discoverable in a Title VII action because forcing employees to reveal such information could deter undocumented workers from filing complaints about labor and civil rights violations and the information was not relevant to the issue of liability

Explaining that the deferential standard of review is appropriate because the "[the ALJ] ... sees the witnesses and hears them testify, while the Board and the reviewing court look only at cold records"

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

Observing that "injunctive relief under section 10(j) is intended to preserve the status quo pending final action by the Board"

In Bourne, we held that interrogation which does not contain express threats is not an unfair labor practice unless certain "fairly severe standards" are met showing that the very fact of interrogation was coercive.

Finding that the procedures for unfair labor practice cases mandated by R.C. 4117.12 and 4117.13 are substantively identical to those established in NLRA to govern unfair labor practice cases before NLRB

Permitting the administrative law judge to award an attorney's fee to the prevailing party "if the losing party's argument is without reasonable foundation in law and fact"