§

Wingate of Dutchess, Inc.

03-CA-140576 (N.L.R.B. Nov. 16, 2015)
Wingate of Dutchess, Inc.

22 Cited authorities

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

    340 U.S. 474 (1951)   Cited 9,687 times   3 Legal Analyses
    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 "

  2. 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."

  3. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co.

    395 U.S. 575 (1969)   Cited 1,036 times   71 Legal Analyses
    Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"

  4. Lechmere, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    502 U.S. 527 (1992)   Cited 156 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Board erred in finding that employer should have allowed union on its premises because it had no other way to reach its target audience, inasmuch as in reaching its decision the Board misconstrued prior Supreme Court precedent

  5. Labor Board v. Babcock Wilcox Co.

    351 U.S. 105 (1956)   Cited 294 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Board could not require an employer to allow non-employee union representatives to enter the employer's parking lot

  6. Labor Board v. Parts Co.

    375 U.S. 405 (1964)   Cited 213 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Act “prohibits not only intrusive threats and promises but also conduct immediately favorable to employees which is undertaken with the express purpose of impinging upon their freedom of choice for or against unionization and is reasonably calculated to have that effect.”

  7. Lunney, an Infant v. Prodigy Services Co.

    529 U.S. 1098 (2000)   Cited 73 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 99-1430. May 1, 2000, OCTOBER TERM, 1999. Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 94 N. Y. 2d 242, 723 N. E. 2d 539.

  8. 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

  9. Figueroa v. U.S.

    511 U.S. 1030 (1994)   Cited 64 times
    Interpreting "reasonable accommodation" under the Rehabilitation Act

  10. Turrisi v. Ponderosa, Inc.

    179 A.D.2d 956 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)   Cited 129 times

    January 30, 1992 Appeal from the Supreme Court, Montgomery County (White, J.). Crew III, J. Third-party defendant, McClellan Street Associates (hereinafter McClellan), owns a shopping center in Schenectady County and rents space to defendant, Ponderosa, Inc. On October 3, 1987, plaintiff Maria Turrisi (hereinafter Turrisi) broke her hip as a result of a slip and fall in the parking lot of the shopping center after leaving Ponderosa. In September 1988, Turrisi and her husband commenced this negligence