§

Philips Electronics North America Corporation

361 N.L.R.B. 189 (N.L.R.B. 2014)
Philips Electronics North America Corporation

5 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. Labor Board v. Burnup Sims

    379 U.S. 21 (1964)   Cited 106 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Finding violation of § 8 "whatever the employer's motive"

  4. Enterprises v. N.L.R.B

    257 F. App'x 642 (4th Cir. 2007)

    Nos. 06-1881, 06-1917. Argued September 25, 2007. Decided December 7, 2007. On Petition for Review and Cross-Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. (9-CA-40915; 9-CA41191; 9-CA-41291; 9-CA-41338). ARGUED: Grant T. Pecor, Nantz, Litowich, Smith, Girard Hamilton, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for SNE Enterprises, Inc. David A. Seid, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for the Board. ON BRIEF: Ronald Meisburg, General Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy

  5. Jeannette Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    532 F.2d 916 (3d Cir. 1976)   Cited 25 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Sustaining the Board's finding that the employer's rule broadly prohibiting wage discussions was an unfair labor practice under § 8, reasoning that "wage discussions can be protected activity and that an employer's unqualified rule barring such discussions has the tendency to inhibit such activity"