Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "

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. City Disposal Systems, Inc.

Holding that a "lone employee's invocation of a right grounded in his collective-bargaining agreement is . . . a concerted activity in a very real sense" because the employee is in effect reminding his employer of the power of the group that brought about the agreement and that could be reharnessed if the employer refuses to respect the employee's objection

Eastex, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

Holding that a newsletter that "urg[ed] employees to write their legislators to oppose incorporation of the state 'right-to-work' statute into a revised state constitution," "criticiz[ed] a Presidential veto of an increase in the federal minimum wage and urg[ed] employees to register to vote" was protected concerted activity

Romano v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith

Upholding conclusion that employees classified as department managers did not meet executive exemption

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

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Relco Locomotives, Inc.

Holding that a challenge to the composition of the National Labor Relations Board under the Recess Appointments Clause was not jurisdictional and could be forfeited if not raised to the Board

Bockes v. Fields

Prill v. N.L.R.B

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."

McPc Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

Distinguishing Wright Line from the framework established in N.L.R.B. v. Burnup & Sims, Inc., 379 U.S. 21, 23, 85 S.Ct. 171, 13 L.Ed.2d 1