Ark Las Vegas Resaurant Corp.

19 Cited authorities

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."
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co.
395 U.S. 575 (1969) Cited 1,035 times 67 Legal Analyses
Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"
Lechmere, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
502 U.S. 527 (1992) Cited 156 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that Board erred in finding that employer should have allowed union on its premises because it had no other way to reach its target audience, inasmuch as in reaching its decision the Board misconstrued prior Supreme Court precedent
Holly Farms Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
517 U.S. 392 (1996) Cited 136 times
Holding that where statute's meaning is obvious, courts and Board must defer to Congress's unambiguous intent, but where ambiguity exists, courts must defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of the statute
Republic Aviation Corp. v. Board
324 U.S. 793 (1945) Cited 495 times 34 Legal Analyses
Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."
SCM Corp. v. Advance Business Systems & Supply Co.
397 U.S. 920 (1970) Cited 200 times 5 Legal Analyses
Upholding a delay of three months where only prejudice shown was that the defendants could not recall details of the days in the distant past; no special circumstances
Labor Board v. Babcock Wilcox Co.
351 U.S. 105 (1956) Cited 294 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Board could not require an employer to allow non-employee union representatives to enter the employer's parking lot
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
Labor Board v. Electrical Workers
346 U.S. 464 (1953) Cited 125 times 41 Legal Analyses
Upholding discharge where employees publicly disparaged quality of employer's product, with no discernible relationship to pending labor dispute
Laidlaw Corporation v. N.L.R.B
414 F.2d 99 (7th Cir. 1969) Cited 81 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that while an employer is not obligated to discharge permanent replacements to make room for returning economic strikers, the employer must place the former strikers on a preferential recall list

Ark Las Vegas Resaurant Corp.

19 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 a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"

Holding that Board erred in finding that employer should have allowed union on its premises because it had no other way to reach its target audience, inasmuch as in reaching its decision the Board misconstrued prior Supreme Court precedent

Holding that where statute's meaning is obvious, courts and Board must defer to Congress's unambiguous intent, but where ambiguity exists, courts must defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of the statute

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

Upholding a delay of three months where only prejudice shown was that the defendants could not recall details of the days in the distant past; no special circumstances

Holding that the Board could not require an employer to allow non-employee union representatives to enter the employer's parking lot

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

Upholding discharge where employees publicly disparaged quality of employer's product, with no discernible relationship to pending labor dispute

Holding that while an employer is not obligated to discharge permanent replacements to make room for returning economic strikers, the employer must place the former strikers on a preferential recall list