§

Hennes & Mauritz, LP d/b/a H&M

32-CA-250461 (N.L.R.B. Jun. 22, 2020)
Hennes & Mauritz, LP d/b/a H&M

5 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. Labor Board v. Burnup Sims

    379 U.S. 21 (1964)   Cited 106 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Finding violation of § 8 "whatever the employer's motive"

  4. Bourne v. N.L.R.B

    332 F.2d 47 (2d Cir. 1964)   Cited 93 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Bourne, we held that interrogation which does not contain express threats is not an unfair labor practice unless certain "fairly severe standards" are met showing that the very fact of interrogation was coercive.

  5. Concepts Designs v. N.L.R.B

    101 F.3d 1243 (8th Cir. 1996)   Cited 12 times

    No. 95-3501, 95-3831. Submitted October 25, 1996. Filed December 3, 1996. Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellant was Daniel R. Hols of Minneapolis, Minnesota. Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellee was Joseph A. Oertel of Washington, D.C. Also appearing on the brief were Charles P. Donnelly, Frederick L. Feinstein, Linda Sher, and Aileen A. Armstrong. On Petitions for Review from National Labor Relations Board. Before BOWMAN, HEANEY, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD