Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.

12 Cited authorities

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 "
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."
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. City Disposal Systems, Inc.
465 U.S. 822 (1984) Cited 204 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that a "lone employee's invocation of a right grounded in his collective-bargaining agreement is . . . a concerted activity in a very real sense" because the employee is in effect reminding his employer of the power of the group that brought about the agreement and that could be reharnessed if the employer refuses to respect the employee's objection
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
Labor Board v. Pittsburgh S.S. Co.
337 U.S. 656 (1949) Cited 88 times
Holding "total rejection of an opposed view cannot of itself impugn the integrity or competence of a trier of fact"
Prill v. N.L.R.B
755 F.2d 941 (D.C. Cir. 1985) Cited 80 times 3 Legal Analyses
In Prill v. NLRB, 755 F.2d 941, 948 (D.C. Cir. 1985), the D.C. Circuit remanded a case to the agency because "a regulation [was] based on an incorrect view of applicable law."
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Louis A. Weiss Memorial Hospital
172 F.3d 432 (7th Cir. 1999) Cited 18 times
Holding that an employer not motivated by anti-union animus may freely exercise its business judgment in hiring decisions, and that the Board should not substitute its judgment for that of the employer
Prill v. N.L.R.B
835 F.2d 1481 (D.C. Cir. 1987) Cited 27 times 8 Legal Analyses
Recognizing that an employee takes concerted action “when he acts with the actual participation or on the authority of his co-workers”
Sam's Club v. National Labor Relations Bd.
141 F.3d 653 (6th Cir. 1998) Cited 6 times
Granting request for enforcement of NLRB decision finding that an employer violated the NLRA where substantial evidence suggested that it disciplined an employee for circulating a petition about a wage grievance and distributing NLRB informational pamphlets to her co-workers
N.L.R.B. v. Container Corp. of America
649 F.2d 1213 (6th Cir. 1981) Cited 13 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Container, the panel reviewed the totality of the record, as it was obligated to do, and found that the questioned testimony was uncertain, vague, uncorroborated and directly contradicted in the record.

Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.

12 Cited authorities

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 "

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

Holding "total rejection of an opposed view cannot of itself impugn the integrity or competence of a trier of fact"

In Prill v. NLRB, 755 F.2d 941, 948 (D.C. Cir. 1985), the D.C. Circuit remanded a case to the agency because "a regulation [was] based on an incorrect view of applicable law."

Holding that an employer not motivated by anti-union animus may freely exercise its business judgment in hiring decisions, and that the Board should not substitute its judgment for that of the employer

Recognizing that an employee takes concerted action “when he acts with the actual participation or on the authority of his co-workers”

Granting request for enforcement of NLRB decision finding that an employer violated the NLRA where substantial evidence suggested that it disciplined an employee for circulating a petition about a wage grievance and distributing NLRB informational pamphlets to her co-workers

In Container, the panel reviewed the totality of the record, as it was obligated to do, and found that the questioned testimony was uncertain, vague, uncorroborated and directly contradicted in the record.