Filed charges or given testimony

AND · 29usc158:board-participation

§8(a)(4) text baseline. The breadth of participation beyond literal hearing testimony requires interpretive authorities outside this six-case sample.

Exact element source

because he has filed charges or given testimony under this subchapter
Source: docroot/ir/usc/title29.jsonl#title29_sec158; Unicode character offsets [2459:2528] (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 · conceded (29usc158: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: truck driver with two pending NLRB charges against the employer, known to the disciplining manager

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 · conceded (29usc158: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md))Filed charges or given testimonysatisfied
Counted merits instance
applied / merits

basis: conceded; party: Airgas USA, LLC; count: § 8(a)(4) retaliation for filing unfair labor practice charges; subject: party=Airgas USA, LLC; count=§ 8(a)(4) retaliation for filing unfair labor practice charges

Charge-filing (and the employer's knowledge of it) was undisputed on review; the court does not weigh it.		truck driver with two pending NLRB charges against the employer, known to the disciplining manager
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.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_916.jsonl#/f3d/916/0555-01; Unicode character offsets [10222:10379] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a292fcc7b8584d5055a83c8af1797ed65202eb7b05a3173322cd95d6c9e16a74.

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

Rottinghouse, alleging the suspension was further retaliation, filed a charge on July 7.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_916.jsonl#/f3d/916/0555-01; Unicode character offsets [1832:1920] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a292fcc7b8584d5055a83c8af1797ed65202eb7b05a3173322cd95d6c9e16a74.

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

Airgas does not dispute the Board's conclusion that the first two factors are satisfied.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_916.jsonl#/f3d/916/0555-01; Unicode character offsets [10133:10221] (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