MIKLIN ENTERPRISES, INC. D/B/A JIMMY JOHN'S

26 Cited authorities

Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union
466 U.S. 485 (1984) Cited 1,626 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that the clear-error standard "does not inhibit an appellate court's power to correct errors of law, including ... a finding of fact that is predicated on a misunderstanding of the governing rule of law"
DeBartolo Corp. v. Fla. Gulf Coast Trades Council
485 U.S. 568 (1988) Cited 726 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that a union’s distribution of handbills at the entrances of a shopping mall was not threatening, coercing, or restraining within meaning of section 8(b) because there had been "no violence, picketing, or patrolling," and "no suggestion that the leaflets had any coercive effect on customers of the mall"
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."
Eastex, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
437 U.S. 556 (1978) Cited 196 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that a newsletter that "urg[ed] employees to write their legislators to oppose incorporation of the state 'right-to-work' statute into a revised state constitution," "criticiz[ed] a Presidential veto of an increase in the federal minimum wage and urg[ed] employees to register to vote" was protected concerted activity
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
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
Arroyo v. United States
359 U.S. 419 (1959) Cited 163 times
Noting the purpose behind § 302 is to promote “the integrity of the collective bargaining process”
Labor Board v. Electrical Workers
346 U.S. 464 (1953) Cited 125 times 41 Legal Analyses
Upholding discharge where employees publicly disparaged quality of employer's product, with no discernible relationship to pending labor dispute
Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
466 F.2d 380 (D.C. Cir. 1972) Cited 157 times 1 Legal Analyses
Declining to enforce Board order giving retroactive effect to rule newly announced in adjudication
Jolliff v. N.L.R.B
513 F.3d 600 (6th Cir. 2008) Cited 24 times
In Jolliff, we canvassed the tests and approaches of other circuits and created a framework for ascertaining whether a defamatory meaning can be gleaned from the allegedly defamatory statement.

MIKLIN ENTERPRISES, INC. D/B/A JIMMY JOHN'S

26 Cited authorities

Holding that the clear-error standard "does not inhibit an appellate court's power to correct errors of law, including ... a finding of fact that is predicated on a misunderstanding of the governing rule of law"

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 certain employee conduct crosses the line from protected activity to "indefensible" conduct that loses NLRA protections

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

Noting the purpose behind § 302 is to promote “the integrity of the collective bargaining process”

Upholding discharge where employees publicly disparaged quality of employer's product, with no discernible relationship to pending labor dispute

Declining to enforce Board order giving retroactive effect to rule newly announced in adjudication

In Jolliff, we canvassed the tests and approaches of other circuits and created a framework for ascertaining whether a defamatory meaning can be gleaned from the allegedly defamatory statement.