§

Lucky Cab Company

360 N.L.R.B. 271 (N.L.R.B. 2014)
Lucky Cab Company

21 Cited authorities

  1. 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."

  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. Solitron Devices v. Island Territory of Curacao

    416 U.S. 986 (1974)   Cited 130 times
    Granting enforcement

  4. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Relco Locomotives, Inc.

    734 F.3d 764 (8th Cir. 2013)   Cited 95 times
    Holding that a challenge to the composition of the National Labor Relations Board under the Recess Appointments Clause was not jurisdictional and could be forfeited if not raised to the Board

  5. Uforma/Shelby Business Forms, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    111 F.3d 1284 (6th Cir. 1997)   Cited 93 times
    Holding that "Rule 408 does not exclude evidence of alleged threats to retaliate for protected activity when the statements occurred during negotiations focused on the protected activity and the evidence serves to prove liability either for making, or later acting upon, the threats" because the evidence was not introduced in order to prove the validity of the grievance which served as the subject of the negotiations

  6. N.L.R.B. v. Consolidated Bus Transit

    577 F.3d 467 (2d Cir. 2009)   Cited 16 times
    Interpreting similar language in 29 C.F.R. § 101.10 as meaning "that the Board's procedures are to be controlled by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as far as practicable" (cleaned up)

  7. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Joy Recovery Tech

    134 F.3d 1307 (7th Cir. 1998)   Cited 28 times
    Concluding that "[i]n this case, timing is everything," where "[t]he closing of the department comes on the heels of the union's organizational activity," including filing a petition for a representation election

  8. Jochims v. National Labor

    480 F.3d 1161 (D.C. Cir. 2007)   Cited 13 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 05-1455. Argued January 22, 2007. Decided March 23, 2007. On Petition for Review of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Harold Craig Becker argued the cause and filed the briefs for petitioner. Daniel A. Blitz, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Ronald E. Meisburg, General Counsel, John H. Ferguson, Associate General Counsel, Aileen A. Armstrong, Deputy Associate General Counsel, and Meredith L. Jason, Supervisory

  9. S F Market St. Healthcare LLC v. N.L.R.B

    570 F.3d 354 (D.C. Cir. 2009)   Cited 10 times

    No. 07-1439, 07-1502. Argued November 17, 2008. Decided June 30, 2009. John H. Douglas argued the cause and filed the briefs for petitioner. Amy H. Ginn, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Ronald E. Meisburg, General Counsel, John H. Ferguson, Associate General Counsel, Linda Dreeben, Deputy Associate General Counsel, and Jill A. Griffin, Supervisory Attorney. Meredith L. Jason and Jason Walta, Attorneys, entered appearances. Before:

  10. 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