§

United States Postal Service

368 N.L.R.B. 153 (N.L.R.B. 2019)
United States Postal Service

6 Cited authorities

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

    462 U.S. 393 (1983)   Cited 652 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. J. Weingarten, Inc.

    420 U.S. 251 (1975)   Cited 434 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

  3. 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

  4. N.L.R.B. v. Consolidated Bus Transit

    577 F.3d 467 (2d Cir. 2009)   Cited 16 times
    Interpreting similar language in 29 C.F.R. § 101.10 as meaning "that the Board's procedures are to be controlled by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as far as practicable" (cleaned up)

  5. Vulcan Basement Waterproofing v. N.L.R.B

    219 F.3d 677 (7th Cir. 2000)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that if the General Counsel proves anti-union animus by a preponderance of the evidence, "the employer can then avoid a finding of an unfair labor practice if it can show that it would have taken the action regardless of the employee's union activities"

  6. Lennox Industries, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    637 F.2d 340 (5th Cir. 1981)   Cited 6 times
    In Lennox, we held that an employee had sufficiently invoked his Weingarten right when the supervisor to whom the request was made was present at the interview, even though the company official who conducted the interview was unaware of the request and the supervisor to whom the request was made did not know what the full scope of the interview would be.