Nestlé USA, Inc.

15 Cited authorities

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Transportation Management Corp.
462 U.S. 393 (1983) Cited 657 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."
Eastex, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
437 U.S. 556 (1978) Cited 196 times 13 Legal Analyses
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
487 U.S. 1205 (1988) Cited 107 times 6 Legal Analyses
Upholding conclusion that employees classified as department managers did not meet executive exemption
Labor Bd. v. Washington Aluminum Co.
370 U.S. 9 (1962) Cited 206 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that certain employee conduct crosses the line from protected activity to "indefensible" conduct that loses NLRA protections
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
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"
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."
McPc Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
813 F.3d 475 (3d Cir. 2016) Cited 18 times
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
Multi-Ad Services, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
255 F.3d 363 (7th Cir. 2001) Cited 34 times
Affirming Board's finding of coercive interrogation where an employee was asked "why he would want to bring a union into the company"
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.

Nestlé USA, Inc.

15 Cited authorities

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."

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

Holding that certain employee conduct crosses the line from protected activity to "indefensible" conduct that loses NLRA protections

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

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

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."

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

Affirming Board's finding of coercive interrogation where an employee was asked "why he would want to bring a union into the company"

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.