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

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.

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

Am. Home Assur. Co. v. Comm. Union Assur. Co.

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

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

Labor Board v. Burnup Sims

Finding violation of § 8 "whatever the employer's motive"

Consolidated Diesel Co. v. N.L.R.B

Recognizing that "[t]here would be nothing left of [the Act's] rights if every time employees exercised them in a way that was somehow offensive to someone," they were subject to the threat of discipline

Frazier Industrial Co., Inc. v. N.L.R.B

Finding that employment application which stated that “false information, omissions, or misrepresentations may result in a discharge of the employee” was insufficient to establish that the plaintiff would have been discharged for conduct at issue, and that company policy manual specifying that falsification of records would warrant immediate dismissal was immaterial where manual had not been distributed to employee prior to employee's termination

Elec. Products Div. of Midland-Ross v. N.L.R.B

In Electrical Products Division of Midland-Ross Corp. v. NLRB, 617 F.2d 977, 987 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 871, 101 S.Ct. 210, 66 L.Ed.2d 91 (1980), we referred to three elements as usually found in these cases where we enforced a Gissel II order: effect of the unfair labor practices on a significant portion of the bargaining unit, the participation of senior company officials, and the continuing impact of the same factors that undermined the first election.

Handicabs, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

Holding that a company policy violated the Act by prohibiting employees from discussing employment conditions with the company's clients.

United States Steel Corp. v. N.L.R.B

Holding that § 8 does not prohibit photography per se, only photography that has a reasonable tendency to coerce