§

Gaylord Hospital

34-CA-013008 (N.L.R.B. Sep. 6, 2012)
Gaylord Hospital

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. 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

  3. 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."

  4. Kiewit Power Constructors Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    652 F.3d 22 (D.C. Cir. 2011)   Cited 10 times
    Holding that a worker telling a supervisor he had “better bring [his] boxing gloves” in a dispute over break time did not lose the Act's protection

  5. Plaza Auto Ctr., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    664 F.3d 286 (9th Cir. 2011)   Cited 7 times   5 Legal Analyses

    Nos. 10–72728 10–73125. 2011-12-19 PLAZA AUTO CENTER, INC., Petitioner/Cross–Respondent, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent/Cross–Petitioner. Stephanie R. Leach, Snell & Wilmer, L.L.P., Phoenix, AZ, for the petitioner. Jill A. Griffin and Kira Dellinger Vol, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for the respondent. QUIST Stephanie R. Leach, Snell & Wilmer, L.L.P., Phoenix, AZ, for the petitioner. Jill A. Griffin and Kira Dellinger Vol, National Labor Relations Board, Washington

  6. Dreis Krump Mfg. Co., Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    544 F.2d 320 (7th Cir. 1976)   Cited 48 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Upholding Board's refusal to defer on ground that award would violate employee's § 7 rights.

  7. Torbitt Castleman v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    123 F.3d 899 (6th Cir. 1997)   Cited 17 times
    Stating that an employee's subjective reaction does not render the challenged conduct unlawful

  8. Prill v. N.L.R.B

    835 F.2d 1481 (D.C. Cir. 1987)   Cited 27 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that an employee takes concerted action “when he acts with the actual participation or on the authority of his co-workers”

  9. New Orleans Cold Storage & Warehouse Co., Ltd. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    201 F.3d 592 (5th Cir. 2000)   Cited 11 times
    Rejecting a company's argument that the employee would have been terminated regardless of his union activity where the evidence was that the company did not ordinarily enforce certain rules and procedures

  10. St. Margaret v. N.L.R.B

    519 F.3d 373 (7th Cir. 2008)   Cited 3 times

    Nos. 07-2752, 07-3110. Argued February 22, 2008. Decided March 11, 2008. Jeffrey C. Kauffman (argued), Seyfarth Shaw, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner/Cross-Respondent. Joseph A. Barker, Chicago, IL, Linda J. Dreeben, Usha Dheenan (argued), National Labor Relations Board, Office of the General Counsel, Washington, DC, for Respondent/Cross-Petitioner. Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and BAUER and POSNER, Circuit Judges. POSNER, Circuit Judge. The Labor Board found that St. Margaret, which owns and operates