Discharge or other discrimination for Board participation

AND · 29usc158:retaliatory-action

Read with the statutory because clause, not as a free-standing retaliation cause of action. The sample does not establish a separate §8(a)(4) burden rule.

Exact element source

to discharge or otherwise discriminate against an employee
Source: docroot/ir/usc/title29.jsonl#title29_sec158; Unicode character offsets [2400:2458] (end exclusive); SHA-256 caadb20cedf4fd4e200812fc0ec46617cc7978ef7a6b0a30e355bccfeb7e0d06.

Routes and case patterns

Curated routes and observed case patterns
RouteDefinitionMerits instance blocksDistinct merits casesExamples (up to 3 cases per count group)
_whole
accepted; provisional (1 case)		The element is decided as a whole: the reasoning turns on no narrower doctrinal sub-question that distinguishes it from any other application of this element.1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0		1

Airgas USA, LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. — 916 F.3d 555 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · proved (29usc158: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted
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

How courts decided this element

Annotation blocks, including explicitly excluded context
CaseElementHolding and scopePatternExact source quotations
Airgas USA, LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. — 916 F.3d 555 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · proved (29usc158: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md))Discharge or other discrimination for Board participationsatisfied
Counted merits instance
applied / merits

basis: proved; party: Airgas USA, LLC; count: § 8(a)(4) written warning; subject: party=Airgas USA, LLC; count=§ 8(a)(4) written warning

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.		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
The language of § 8(a)(4) encompasses disproportionate or otherwise retaliatory discipline.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_916.jsonl#/f3d/916/0555-01; Unicode character offsets [8450:8541] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a292fcc7b8584d5055a83c8af1797ed65202eb7b05a3173322cd95d6c9e16a74.

Evidence kind: rule; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Rottinghouse received his written warning on August 6, just under a month after he filed a charge with the Board.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_916.jsonl#/f3d/916/0555-01; Unicode character offsets [19768:19881] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a292fcc7b8584d5055a83c8af1797ed65202eb7b05a3173322cd95d6c9e16a74.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

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.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_916.jsonl#/f3d/916/0555-01; Unicode character offsets [14658:14805] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a292fcc7b8584d5055a83c8af1797ed65202eb7b05a3173322cd95d6c9e16a74.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

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."
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_916.jsonl#/f3d/916/0555-01; Unicode character offsets [17934:18129] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a292fcc7b8584d5055a83c8af1797ed65202eb7b05a3173322cd95d6c9e16a74.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

The General Counsel's second example involves Edger Reed, who received verbal counseling for talking on the phone while driving.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_916.jsonl#/f3d/916/0555-01; Unicode character offsets [23231:23359] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a292fcc7b8584d5055a83c8af1797ed65202eb7b05a3173322cd95d6c9e16a74.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

The cylinders in Rottinghouse's truck, though secured with two straps, were not nested properly and leaned slightly against the truck railing.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_916.jsonl#/f3d/916/0555-01; Unicode character offsets [2764:2906] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a292fcc7b8584d5055a83c8af1797ed65202eb7b05a3173322cd95d6c9e16a74.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: cuts-against; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

In other words, substantial evidence supports the Board's decision that Airgas "acted as it did on the basis of anti-union animus."
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_916.jsonl#/f3d/916/0555-01; Unicode character offsets [25342:25473] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a292fcc7b8584d5055a83c8af1797ed65202eb7b05a3173322cd95d6c9e16a74.

Evidence kind: held; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Court interpretations