§

DHL EXPRESS (USA), INC.

360 N.L.R.B. 730 (N.L.R.B. 2014)
DHL EXPRESS (USA), INC.

5 Cited authorities

  1. Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    340 U.S. 474 (1951)   Cited 9,623 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "

  2. 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."

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Universal Camera

    179 F.2d 749 (2d Cir. 1950)   Cited 24 times

    No. 54, Docket 21395. Argued December 6, 1949. Decided January 10, 1950. A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C., David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, Ruth Weyand, Asst. Gen. Counsel, William J. Avrutis, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Kaye, Scholer, Fierman Hays, New York City, Frederick R. Livingston, New York City, for respondent. On petition of the National Labor Relations Board for an order, "enforcing" an order of the Board to "cease