Pratt Towers, Inc.

51 Cited authorities

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Transportation Management Corp.
462 U.S. 393 (1983) Cited 655 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."
Longshoremen v. Davis
476 U.S. 380 (1986) Cited 319 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that where "a state court . . . ha no subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue . . ., any judgment issued by the state court will be void ab initio"
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc.
388 U.S. 26 (1967) Cited 322 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of discriminatory conduct as the Company failed to meet its burden of establishing legitimate motives for its conduct
Radio Officers v. Labor Board
347 U.S. 17 (1954) Cited 471 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[t]he policy of the Act is to insulate employees' jobs from their organizational rights"
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Fleetwood Trailer Co.
389 U.S. 375 (1967) Cited 233 times
In Fleetwood Trailer, 389 U.S. 375, 88 S.Ct. 543, the Supreme Court was required to determine whether the employer violated the Act when it hired six new employees who had not previously worked for the company instead of six former strikers who had applied for reinstatement.
Labor Board v. Mackay Co.
304 U.S. 333 (1938) Cited 535 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employer may replace striking workers with others to carry on business so long as the employer is not guilty of unfair labor practices
SCM Corp. v. Advance Business Systems & Supply Co.
397 U.S. 920 (1970) Cited 200 times 5 Legal Analyses
Upholding a delay of three months where only prejudice shown was that the defendants could not recall details of the days in the distant past; no special circumstances
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Health Care & Retirement Corp. of America
511 U.S. 571 (1994) Cited 97 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the Board's test is inconsistent with both the statutory language and th[e] Court's precedents"
Garment Workers v. Labor Board
366 U.S. 731 (1961) Cited 213 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that a union cannot represent a group of employees for which it does not enjoy majority support
Drivers Union v. Meadowmoor Co.
312 U.S. 287 (1941) Cited 382 times
Holding an injunction banning picketing was "justified only by the violence that induced it and only so long as it counteracts a continuing intimidation"
Rule 807 - Residual Exception
Fed. R. Evid. 807 Cited 1,625 times 11 Legal Analyses
Requiring "sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness" under the residual exception to the hearsay rule

Pratt Towers, Inc.

51 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."

Holding that where "a state court . . . ha no subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue . . ., any judgment issued by the state court will be void ab initio"

Holding that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of discriminatory conduct as the Company failed to meet its burden of establishing legitimate motives for its conduct

Holding that "[t]he policy of the Act is to insulate employees' jobs from their organizational rights"

In Fleetwood Trailer, 389 U.S. 375, 88 S.Ct. 543, the Supreme Court was required to determine whether the employer violated the Act when it hired six new employees who had not previously worked for the company instead of six former strikers who had applied for reinstatement.

Holding that an employer may replace striking workers with others to carry on business so long as the employer is not guilty of unfair labor practices

Upholding a delay of three months where only prejudice shown was that the defendants could not recall details of the days in the distant past; no special circumstances

Holding that "the Board's test is inconsistent with both the statutory language and th[e] Court's precedents"

Holding that a union cannot represent a group of employees for which it does not enjoy majority support

Holding an injunction banning picketing was "justified only by the violence that induced it and only so long as it counteracts a continuing intimidation"

Requiring "sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness" under the residual exception to the hearsay rule