§

Kentucky River Medical Center

355 N.L.R.B. 643 (N.L.R.B. 2010)
Kentucky River Medical Center

14 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. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. J. Weingarten, Inc.

    420 U.S. 251 (1975)   Cited 431 times   64 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an employer commits an unfair labor practice by compelling an employee to attend an investigatory meeting that could lead to discipline without allowing the employee to bring a union witness

  4. National Labor Rel. B. v. Kentucky R. Comm. C

    532 U.S. 706 (2001)   Cited 179 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the burden of proving a statutory exception generally falls on the party who claims a benefit

  5. Labor Bd. v. Washington Aluminum Co.

    370 U.S. 9 (1962)   Cited 206 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that certain employee conduct crosses the line from protected activity to "indefensible" conduct that loses NLRA protections

  6. 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

  7. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. District Council of Iron Workers of California & Vicinity

    124 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 1997)   Cited 48 times

    No. 95-70772 Argued November 8, 1996 — San Francisco, California. Submission deferred November, 8, 1996 Submitted November 20, 1996 The panel finds this case appropriate for submission on the briefs without oral argument pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 34(a) and 9th Cir. R. 34-4. Decided September 4, 1997 COUNSEL Margaret Gaines Neigus, Deborah E. Shrager, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, DC, for petitioner. Victor J. Van Bourg, Van Bourg, Weinberg, Roger Rosenfeld, Oakland, Ca, for respondents

  8. Laro Maintenance Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    56 F.3d 224 (D.C. Cir. 1995)   Cited 23 times
    Inferring discriminatory motive from, inter alia, an employer's professed desire to hire the best qualified workers and the employer's subsequent decision to hire employees with no relevant experience over union members with experience

  9. Shattuck Denn Mining Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    362 F.2d 466 (9th Cir. 1966)   Cited 56 times
    Upholding Board's determination that discharge for insubordination was pretextual where employer "refused to discharge" another employee also accused of insubordination

  10. Parts v. National

    260 F. App'x 607 (4th Cir. 2008)

    Nos. 07-1178, 07-1290. Argued December 4, 2007. Decided January 7, 2008. On Petition for Review and Cross-application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. (12-CA-16449; 12-CA16741). ARGUED: Cathy M. Stutin, Fisher Phillips, L.L.P., Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, for Parts Depot, Incorporated. Christopher Warren Young, National Labor Relations Board, Office of the General Counsel, Washington, D.C., for the Board; Brent Garren, Unite Here, New York, New York, for Unite Here