§
Ross Stores

18 Cited authorities

  1. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Transportation Management Corp.

    462 U.S. 393 (1983)   Cited 651 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. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co.

    395 U.S. 575 (1969)   Cited 1,033 times   66 Legal Analyses
    Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"

  3. Machinists Local v. Labor Board

    362 U.S. 411 (1960)   Cited 276 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “a finding of violation which is inescapably grounded on events predating the limitations period” is untimely

  4. N.L.R.B. v. Wright Line, a Div. of Wright Line, Inc.

    662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981)   Cited 357 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act

  5. Nat. Licorice Co. v. Labor Bd.

    309 U.S. 350 (1940)   Cited 314 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that requiring employees to sign individual contracts waiving their rights to self-organization and collective bargaining violates § 8 of the NLRA

  6. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Fant Milling Co.

    360 U.S. 301 (1959)   Cited 106 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an untimely allegation of an unlawful unilateral wage increase was sufficiently related to a timely refusal-to-bargain charge, because the wage increase "largely influenced" the Board's finding that an unlawful refusal to bargain had occurred

  7. Sam's Club v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    173 F.3d 233 (4th Cir. 1999)   Cited 22 times

    Nos. 97-2721, 98-1085 Argued: June 3, 1998 Decided: April 9, 1999 On Petition for Review and Cross-Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. (5-CA-24369, 5-CA-24618, 5-RC-14036) ARGUED: Paul Michael Thompson, HUNTON WILLIAMS, Richmond, Virginia, for Petitioner. Jill Ann Griffin, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. George Wiszynski, BUTSAVAGE ASSOCIATES, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Intervenor. ON BRIEF: Michael P. Oates, HUNTON WILLIAMS

  8. FPC Holdings, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    64 F.3d 935 (4th Cir. 1995)   Cited 23 times
    Holding that company's knowledge of employee's union involvement was properly inferred from the fact that the employees discussed a planned union meeting openly in the company's warehouse and over the company's CB radio at a time when the company was closely monitoring one of the employee's behavior

  9. Drug Plastics Glass Co., Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    44 F.3d 1017 (D.C. Cir. 1995)   Cited 18 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Drug Plastics, 30 F.3d at 172-73, we upheld the Board's test pursuant to Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984), as a permissible interpretation of § 10(b).

  10. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Adco Electric Inc.

    6 F.3d 1110 (5th Cir. 1993)   Cited 19 times
    Holding that employee "recommend[ing] someone for hire and [bringing] problems with apprentice employees to the attention of [his superior] is nothing more than what [the employer] would expect from experienced employees"