Source: cases/29usc158/f3d-916-555-airgas.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_916/0555_01/index.html
Airgas does not dispute the Board's conclusion that the first two factors are satisfied.
The language of § 8(a)(4) encompasses disproportionate or otherwise retaliatory discipline.
In other words, substantial evidence supports the Board's decision that Airgas "acted as it did on the basis of anti-union animus."
If the employer's proffered justification is determined to be pretextual, the Board need not consider it.
The Board's finding of pretext was therefore supported by substantial evidence, and it was not obligated to consider the justification any further.
casedsl 1.2
# author: Flash3 (gemini-3.8-flash-high)
# triaged-by: Fable (2026-11-10)
case /f3d/916/0555-01
name Airgas USA, LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
cite 916 F.3d 555 (2019)
court United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
date 2019-02-21
url catalog/cases/f3d/volume_916/0555_01/index.html
source ir/caselaw/f3d_916.jsonl sha1=ee52e7471eb7ecba9e8c799457fd7ad275787d71 chars=30273
opinion op : majority by Stranch @0..28823, @28823..30273 controlling
party p1 : Airgas USA, LLC
count c1 : § 8(a)(4) retaliation for filing unfair labor practice charges
count c2 : § 8(a)(4) written warning
law 29usc158
role applied
posture petition for review and cross-application for enforcement of NLRB order finding employer committed § 8(a)(4) and § 8(a)(1) retaliatory discipline; enforcement granted and petition denied
result claimant-won
element board-participation : satisfied [conceded]
party p1
count c1
route _whole
pattern truck driver with two pending NLRB charges against the employer, known to the disciplining manager
fact @10222..10379 [supports] | Rottinghouse filed two charges in the months leading up to the August written warning, and Froslear provided an affidavit regarding the first charge in July.
fact @1832..1920 [supports] | Rottinghouse, alleging the suspension was further retaliation, filed a charge on July 7.
held @10133..10221 | Airgas does not dispute the Board's conclusion that the first two factors are satisfied.
gloss Charge-filing (and the employer's knowledge of it) was undisputed on review; the court does not weigh it.
element retaliatory-action : satisfied [proved]
party p1
count c2
route _whole
pattern written warning instead of the customary verbal warning for a load-securement lapse, one month after a charge; animus inferred from manager's discredited safety rationale, timing and disparate treatment
rule @8450..8541 | The language of § 8(a)(4) encompasses disproportionate or otherwise retaliatory discipline.
fact @19768..19881 [supports] | Rottinghouse received his written warning on August 6, just under a month after he filed a charge with the Board.
fact @14658..14805 [supports] | Under the facts accepted by the ALJ and the Board, Froslear had two opportunities to instruct Rottinghouse to fix the problem, but he said nothing.
fact @17934..18129 [supports] | Although Froslear knew that Rottinghouse had, he twice failed to answer MacBride's question directly and then requested "the strongest language about load securement that drivers are trained to."
fact @23231..23359 [supports] | The General Counsel's second example involves Edger Reed, who received verbal counseling for talking on the phone while driving.
fact @2764..2906 [cuts-against] | The cylinders in Rottinghouse's truck, though secured with two straps, were not nested properly and leaned slightly against the truck railing.
held @25342..25473 | In other words, substantial evidence supports the Board's decision that Airgas "acted as it did on the basis of anti-union animus."
gloss The contested question was the "because" clause: whether the written (rather than verbal) warning was motivated by the charge-filing. The court upholds the Board's animus inference under Wright Line's first stage.
defense same-decision : not-satisfied [proved]
party p1
count c2
route _whole
pattern employer's safety and prior-violation justifications for written discipline found pretextual; prior violation first invoked seven weeks later
rule @25740..25845 | If the employer's proffered justification is determined to be pretextual, the Board need not consider it.
fact @1625..1738 [supports] | Then, in late June, Airgas suspended Rottinghouse for three days for completing DOT paperwork after clocking out.
fact @26732..26825 [cuts-against] | The first time Froslear mentioned the prior violation was the September 23 grievance meeting.
fact @27488..27694 [cuts-against] | Froslear instead read Article 22 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement-in essence, responding that because Article 22 does not mention verbal warnings, a written warning was appropriate for any infraction.
held @28491..28638 | The Board's finding of pretext was therefore supported by substantial evidence, and it was not obligated to consider the justification any further.
gloss Added on triage. Wright Line's second stage as applied to a § 8(a)(4) charge: the employer's burden failed because its reasons were found pretextual, a finding the court upholds.
? other: same-decision is declared in the .law file under the § 8(a)(3) claim formula; the court applies the same Wright Line defence to § 8(a)(4) ("The Wright Line test applies in cases alleging a violation of § 8(a)(4)").