§

Chip's Wethersfield, LLC d/b/a Chip's Family Restaurant

01-CA-217597 (N.L.R.B. Sep. 25, 2019)
Chip's Wethersfield, LLC d/b/a Chip's Family Restaurant

13 Cited authorities

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

    462 U.S. 393 (1983)   Cited 656 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. Beth Israel Hospital v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    437 U.S. 483 (1978)   Cited 221 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in the context of solicitation rules, such circumstances are required to justify restrictions on solicitation during nonworking time

  3. Romano v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith

    487 U.S. 1205 (1988)   Cited 106 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Upholding conclusion that employees classified as department managers did not meet executive exemption

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

    662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981)   Cited 358 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 316 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. Prill v. N.L.R.B

    755 F.2d 941 (D.C. Cir. 1985)   Cited 80 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Prill v. NLRB, 755 F.2d 941, 948 (D.C. Cir. 1985), the D.C. Circuit remanded a case to the agency because "a regulation [was] based on an incorrect view of applicable law."

  8. King Soopers, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    859 F.3d 23 (D.C. Cir. 2017)   Cited 5 times

    No. 16-1316 C/w 16-1367 06-09-2017 KING SOOPERS, INC., Petitioner v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent Raymond M. Deeny, Colorado Springs, CO, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Jonathon M. Watson, Denver, CO. Amy H. Ginn, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Richard F. Griffin, Jr., General Counsel, John H. Ferguson, Associate General Counsel, Linda Dreeben, Deputy Associate General Counsel, and Robert

  9. Three D, LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    629 F. App'x 33 (2d Cir. 2015)   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that something "violates [the NLRA's interference provision] if it would reasonably tend to chill employees in the exercise of their [NLRA rights]"

  10. Hyundai Am. Shipping Agency, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    805 F.3d 309 (D.C. Cir. 2015)   Cited 2 times
    Declining to endorse the Board's "novel view" but holding that Hyundai's rule prohibiting discussion of all matters under investigation "was so broad and undifferentiated that the Board reasonably concluded that Hyundai did not present a legitimate business justification for it"