§

Livin Spoonful, Inc.

361 N.L.R.B. 595 (N.L.R.B. 2014)
Livin Spoonful, Inc.

7 Cited authorities

  1. Romano v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith

    487 U.S. 1205 (1988)   Cited 105 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Upholding conclusion that employees classified as department managers did not meet executive exemption

  2. 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

  3. 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.

  4. 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."

  5. N.L.R.B. v. Mike Yurosek Son, Inc.

    53 F.3d 261 (9th Cir. 1995)   Cited 22 times
    Holding that four employees who protested reduction in hours and then later refused a contradictory order to work longer hours engaged in concerted activity

  6. 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”

  7. Handicabs, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    95 F.3d 681 (8th Cir. 1996)   Cited 8 times
    Holding that a company policy violated the Act by prohibiting employees from discussing employment conditions with the company's clients.