Naples Community Hospital

13 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."
Beth Israel Hospital v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
437 U.S. 483 (1978) Cited 220 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that, in the context of solicitation rules, such circumstances are required to justify restrictions on solicitation during nonworking time
Republic Aviation Corp. v. Board
324 U.S. 793 (1945) Cited 494 times 34 Legal Analyses
Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."
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
Dyer v. MacDougall
201 F.2d 265 (2d Cir. 1952) Cited 321 times
Holding that witness demeanor may persuade a jury to "assume the truth of what he denied," but a court cannot allow a case to go to the jury on such evidence
U.S. v. Smith
123 F.3d 140 (3d Cir. 1997) Cited 71 times
Noting that while "[w]e cannot restore the secrecy that has already been lost . . . we can grant partial relief by preventing further disclosure."
Dole v. Milonas
889 F.2d 885 (9th Cir. 1989) Cited 75 times
Recognizing that "the district court may adopt the 'privilege log' approach"
Guardian Industries Corp. v. N.L.R.B
49 F.3d 317 (7th Cir. 1995) Cited 16 times 2 Legal Analyses
Nos. 94-2388, 94-2664. Argued January 18, 1995. Decided February 28, 1995. Todd M. Nierman (argued), Michael R. Maine, Baker Daniels, Indianapolis, IN, for petitioner. Charles P. Donnelly, Jr., Joseph Oertel (argued), N.L.R.B., Contempt Litigation Branch, Aileen A. Armstrong, N.L.R.B., Appellate Court, Enforcement Litigation, Washington, DC, Saudria Bordone, Joanne Krause, N.L.R.B., Region 25, Indianapolis, IN, for respondent. Petition for review from the National Labor Relations Board. Before COFFEY
Holsum de Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
456 F.3d 265 (1st Cir. 2006) Cited 3 times
Finding substantial evidence of knowledge of union activities conducted in plain view in an open parking lot where the activities "could very well have been observed by any number of supervisors and managers"
National Labor Rel. Brd. v. Detroit Newspapers
185 F.3d 602 (6th Cir. 1999) Cited 7 times
Concluding that "district court had the obligation ... to determine whether the subpoenaed documents were protected by some privilege, and had no discretion to delegate that duty"

Naples Community Hospital

13 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, in the context of solicitation rules, such circumstances are required to justify restrictions on solicitation during nonworking time

Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."

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

Holding that witness demeanor may persuade a jury to "assume the truth of what he denied," but a court cannot allow a case to go to the jury on such evidence

Noting that while "[w]e cannot restore the secrecy that has already been lost . . . we can grant partial relief by preventing further disclosure."

Recognizing that "the district court may adopt the 'privilege log' approach"

Finding substantial evidence of knowledge of union activities conducted in plain view in an open parking lot where the activities "could very well have been observed by any number of supervisors and managers"

Concluding that "district court had the obligation ... to determine whether the subpoenaed documents were protected by some privilege, and had no discretion to delegate that duty"