MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL

27 Cited authorities

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."
Labor Board v. Katz
369 U.S. 736 (1962) Cited 708 times 29 Legal Analyses
Holding that "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"
Detroit Edison Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
440 U.S. 301 (1979) Cited 225 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that NLRB erred in requiring employer to disclose performance test scores of employees as information for collective bargaining, regardless of employee consent, because of the sensitive nature of the test scores
Loral Defense Systems-Akron v. N.L.R.B
200 F.3d 436 (6th Cir. 1999) Cited 367 times
Holding an ALJ can consider evidence without directly addressing it
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Acme Industrial Co.
385 U.S. 432 (1967) Cited 263 times 4 Legal Analyses
Approving "discovery-type standard"
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. Truitt Mfg. Co.
351 U.S. 149 (1956) Cited 223 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that the duty to produce information relevant to a bargaining issue is derivative from the broader statutory duty to bargain in good-faith
Inova Health Sys. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
795 F.3d 68 (D.C. Cir. 2015) Cited 28 times
Doubting that a company fired its employee for her unprofessional conduct, as it claimed, when that company's investigation into her behavior was "one-sided" and incomplete
Ozburn-Hessey Logistics, LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
833 F.3d 210 (D.C. Cir. 2016) Cited 22 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding pretext where the company's discharge decision was "inconsistent with" other disciplinary decisions and "deviated from the Company's progressive disciplinary policy"
W.F. Bolin Co. v. N.L.R.B
70 F.3d 863 (6th Cir. 1995) Cited 48 times
Holding that an "inference of improper employer motivation" is permitted when an employer has terminated an employee who acted as a leader in making complaints to management on behalf of himself or others, or has organized workers on employment issues

MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL

27 Cited authorities

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 "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"

Holding that NLRB erred in requiring employer to disclose performance test scores of employees as information for collective bargaining, regardless of employee consent, because of the sensitive nature of the test scores

Holding an ALJ can consider evidence without directly addressing it

Approving "discovery-type standard"

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

Holding that the duty to produce information relevant to a bargaining issue is derivative from the broader statutory duty to bargain in good-faith

Doubting that a company fired its employee for her unprofessional conduct, as it claimed, when that company's investigation into her behavior was "one-sided" and incomplete

Finding pretext where the company's discharge decision was "inconsistent with" other disciplinary decisions and "deviated from the Company's progressive disciplinary policy"

Holding that an "inference of improper employer motivation" is permitted when an employer has terminated an employee who acted as a leader in making complaints to management on behalf of himself or others, or has organized workers on employment issues