Donaldson Bros. Ready Mix

9 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. 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"
  3. National Labor Rel. B. v. Kentucky R. Comm. C

    532 U.S. 706 (2001)   Cited 180 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the burden of proving a statutory exception generally falls on the party who claims a benefit
  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. Hotel Emp. Restaurant Emp. Un. v. N.L.R.B

    760 F.2d 1006 (9th Cir. 1985)   Cited 26 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Affirming Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176
  6. Ishikawa Gasket America, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    354 F.3d 534 (6th Cir. 2004)   Cited 2 times

    No. 02-1167/1310. Argued: October 21, 2003. Decided and Filed: January 7, 2004. ON PETITION FOR REVIEW AND CROSS-APPLICATION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. No. 8-CA-31292. Maurice G. Jenkins (argued and briefed), Paul R. Bernard (abriefed), Jennifer K. Nowaczok (briefed), Dickinson, Wright, PLLC, Detroit, MI, for Petitioner. David Seid (argued and briefed), National Labor Relations Board, Office of General Counsel, Washington, DC, Aileen A. Armstrong (briefed)

  7. Beaird-Poulan Division, Emerson, v. N.L.R.B

    649 F.2d 589 (8th Cir. 1981)   Cited 23 times
    Reading the determinative factor in Georgetown Dress to be the lack of a professional organizer on the scene
  8. N.L.R.B. v. Chicago Metallic Corp.

    794 F.2d 527 (9th Cir. 1986)   Cited 14 times
    In Chicago Metallic, unlike the situation presented here, the employee at issue was assigned no manual chores and had the authority and discretion to take disciplinary action against employees.
  9. N.L.R.B. v. Roselon Southern, Inc.

    382 F.2d 245 (6th Cir. 1967)   Cited 8 times
    In N.L.R.B. v. Roselon Southern, Inc., 382 F.2d 245 (6th Cir. 1967) the Court held that if a person alleged to be a supervisor performs any one of the functions set forth in the statutory definition, he meets the test, and it is not necessary that such person is required to regularly and routinely exercise such powers, but it is the existence of the power that determines his status as a supervisor.