Queen of the Valley Medical Center

69 Cited authorities

Nat'l Hockey League v. Met. Hockey Club
427 U.S. 639 (1976) Cited 2,812 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that dismissal was proper sanction under Rule 37 where respondents failed to answer interrogatories for seventeen months
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."
Leon v. IDX Systems Corp.
464 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2006) Cited 800 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiffs Sarbanes-Oxley claim and Title VII retaliation claims involved the same nucleus of operative facts, including the time, cause, and circumstances of plaintiffs termination
Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC
220 F.R.D. 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) Cited 711 times 50 Legal Analyses
Holding that destruction of evidence was "grossly negligent, if not reckless" where the defendant "failed to include [evidence from a key employee] in its preservation directive"
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"
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. J. Weingarten, Inc.
420 U.S. 251 (1975) Cited 431 times 64 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employer commits an unfair labor practice by compelling an employee to attend an investigatory meeting that could lead to discipline without allowing the employee to bring a union witness
Loral Defense Systems-Akron v. N.L.R.B
200 F.3d 436 (6th Cir. 1999) Cited 369 times
Holding an ALJ can consider evidence without directly addressing it
Labor Board v. Insurance Agents
361 U.S. 477 (1960) Cited 324 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that, subject to the duty to bargain in good faith, "parties should have wide latitude in their negotiations"
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Acme Industrial Co.
385 U.S. 432 (1967) Cited 263 times 4 Legal Analyses
Approving "discovery-type standard"
Local Union No. 189, Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen v. Jewel Tea Co.
381 U.S. 676 (1965) Cited 242 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding a marketing hours limitation contained in a multiemployer contract exempt from antitrust liability because its purpose was to protect the wages, hours, and working conditions of the union's members
Rule 801 - Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay
Fed. R. Evid. 801 Cited 19,426 times 75 Legal Analyses
Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party
Rule 34 - Producing Documents, Electronically Stored Information, and Tangible Things, or Entering onto Land, for Inspection and Other Purposes
Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 Cited 13,493 times 153 Legal Analyses
Finding that the rules related to electronic discovery were "not meant to create a routine right of direct access to a party's electronic information system, although such access may be justified in some circumstances."
Section 161 - Investigatory powers of Board
29 U.S.C. § 161 Cited 344 times 2 Legal Analyses
Authorizing the Board or any designee to compel "attendance of witnesses and the production of ... evidence ... from any place in the United States or any Territory or possession thereof, at any designated place of hearing "

Queen of the Valley Medical Center

69 Cited authorities

Holding that dismissal was proper sanction under Rule 37 where respondents failed to answer interrogatories for seventeen months

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 plaintiffs Sarbanes-Oxley claim and Title VII retaliation claims involved the same nucleus of operative facts, including the time, cause, and circumstances of plaintiffs termination

Holding that destruction of evidence was "grossly negligent, if not reckless" where the defendant "failed to include [evidence from a key employee] in its preservation directive"

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 an employer commits an unfair labor practice by compelling an employee to attend an investigatory meeting that could lead to discipline without allowing the employee to bring a union witness

Holding an ALJ can consider evidence without directly addressing it

Holding that, subject to the duty to bargain in good faith, "parties should have wide latitude in their negotiations"

Approving "discovery-type standard"

Finding a marketing hours limitation contained in a multiemployer contract exempt from antitrust liability because its purpose was to protect the wages, hours, and working conditions of the union's members

Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party

Finding that the rules related to electronic discovery were "not meant to create a routine right of direct access to a party's electronic information system, although such access may be justified in some circumstances."

Authorizing the Board or any designee to compel "attendance of witnesses and the production of ... evidence ... from any place in the United States or any Territory or possession thereof, at any designated place of hearing "