Document: 462 U.S. 393 103 S.Ct. 2469 76 L.Ed.2d 667 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitionerv.TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT CORP. No. 82-168. Argued March 28, 1983. Decided June 15, Syllabus Acting on unfair labor practice charges filed by an employee of respondent, petitioner National Labor Relations Board found that respondent had discharged the employee, a bus driver, for his union activities, in violation §§ 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) Act. The applied its rule General Counsel has burden persuading preponderance evidence antiunion animus contributed to employer's decision discharge employer can avoid conclusion it violated Act proving would have been fired permissible reasons even if he not involved protected activities. concluded failed carry employee's taken place, engaged because leaving keys taking unauthorized breaks. Court Appeals refused enforce Board's order, based view was error place employer, carried only forbidden motivation but also independently conduct. Held: 1. proof placed under is consistent with 8(a)(3), as well § 10(c) Act, which provides must prove unlawful "preponderance evidence." construction statute, mandated extends what considers be affirmative defense does change or add elements 10(c). This construction, allocation reasonable. Cf. Mt. Healthy City Education v. Doyle, 429 274, 97 568, 50 471. Pp. 397-404. 2. justified this case finding considered Such supported substantial record whole. P. 2 75. 674 F.2d 130 (1st Cir.1982), reversed. Lawrence G. Wallace, Washington, D.C., petitioner. Martin Ames, Chelmsford, Mass., respondent. 1 WHITE, Justice, delivered opinion Court. (NLRA Act), 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq., makes worker activity, 158(a)(1), (3),1 employers retain right workers any number other unrelated When (Board) files complaint alleging may assert legitimate motives decision. In Wright Line, 251 N.L.R.B. 1083 (1980), enforced, 662 899 (CA1 1981), cert. denied 455 989, 102 1612, 71 848 (1982), reformulated such cases. It determined anti-union shift, meet neutralize Counsel's showing, could statute demonstrating Union. question presented whether Line NLRA, 160(c), evidence."2 3 Prior discharge, Sam Santillo driver Transportation Management Corp. On 19, 1979, talked officials Teamster's Union about organizing drivers who worked him. Over next four days discussed fellow possibility joining Teamsters distributed authorization cards. night 23, George Patterson, supervised drivers, told one heard Santillo's Patterson referred two-faced, promised get 4 Later evening Ed Wes , asked, "What's Union?" said took actions personally, recounted several favors done Santillo, added remember activities when again asked favor. Monday, 26, discharged. being 5 contrary NLRA. issued complaint. administrative law judge (ALJ) clearly motivated desire discourage ALJ asserted withstand scrutiny. Patterson's disapproval pretext, known until after decided Santillo; moreover, buses commonplace among respondent's employees. Respondent identified two types breaks, coffee breaks stops at home. With respect both stopping home, never cautioned admonished behavior, followed customary issuing three written warnings before discharging driver. during working hours normal practice, tolerated unless interfered driver's performance duties. event, ALJ, adverse personnel action against behavior. While acknowledging some unsatisfactory conduct, persuaded 6 affirmed, adopting clarification ALJ's findings conclusions expressly applying stated activity First Circuit Appeals, relying previous rejecting test, NLRB order remanded consideration proved 130. We granted certiorari, --- ----, 372, 74 506 conflicts issue Courts Appeals.3 now reverse. 7 Employees covered NLRA form, join, assist organizations. 7, 157. interfere with, restrain, coerce exercise those rights, 8(a)(1), discrimination hire tenure "to encourage membership organization," 8 a)(3), 158(a)(3). Under these provisions undisputed fires having no basis proffers are pretextual, commits practice. He violate however, might entertained did contribute all otherwise lawful good cause. Soon passage held where actually Consumers Research, Inc., 57, 73 (1936); Louisville Refining Co., 844, 861 (1938), 678 (CA6), denied, 308 60 81, 84 L.Ed. 477 (1939); Dow Chemical 13 993, 1023 (1939), enforced relevant part, 117 (CA6 1941); Republic Creosoting 19 267, 294 (1940). rejected position "antecedent sole motive activity." explained "[s]uch interpretation repugnant purpose meaning . made." Ibid. Third Annual Report, stated, "Where more reasons, them affiliation [of ]." Report 70 (1938). following year supra, acted out bias "whether [employer] without regard [employer's] lawful." N.L.R.B., 1023. Act—that establish need show way frustrate activity—was plainly rational acceptable. adhered since time. 9 At same time, there were decisions indicating presence end matter. An escape consequences impermissible motivation, wholly reasons. See, e.g., Eagle-Picher Mining & Smelting 16 727, 801 119 903 (CA8 Borden Mills, 459, 474-475 Robbins Tire Rubber 69 440, 454, n. 21 (1946), 161 798 (CA5 1947).4 10 entirely satisfied approach dual-motive 1980 attempt restate analysis acceptable Appeals. course conduct motivating factor discharge.5 Even case, rebut it, rested unprotected lost job event. thus became clear, clear before, occurred event valid amounted evidence. "The shifting merely requires make defense. ." 1088, 11; see id., 1084, 5. 11 enforcement present. Counsel, held, showing employee. quite correct, disagree, throughout proceedings, carries Section directs violations adjudicated "upon testimony" Board. rules state "the attorney pro[ving] 8." CFR 101.10(b). sure, erred holding forbids placing absent improper manner 12 As we understand decisions, they consistently consists adv rse whole part animus—or puts action. But permits violator regardless motivation. 10(c).6 assume reasonably construed insisted obviating adjudication going remedy, surely put employer. instead chosen recognize, insists many years, designates sustaining. unprepared hold "[T]he here, while required least .", circumstances entitled deference. Weingarten, 420 251, 266-267, 95 959, 968, 43 171 (1975); Erie Resistor Corp., 373 221, 236, 83 1139, 1149, (1963). reasonable context, reason Remington Rand, 94 862, 872 (CA2), 304 576, 58 1046, 82 1540 relied began persuasion shifted. E.g., Smelting, 801. wrongdoer; declared illegitimate statute. fair bear risk influence legal illegal cannot separated, knowingly created innocent own wrongdoing. 14 Mount 471 (1977), prudent, albeit implicating Constitution, set up heavily borrowed from There, plaintiff Amendment expression played role If carried, defendant reached if, hypothetically, punish exercising rights. analogy drawn one.7 15 For conclude refusing Boards orders, concluding efforts union. transgressions purportedly prompted commonpla e, yet transgressor ever received kind discipline. Moreover, departed usual dealing infractions; indeed, warn result subjected discipline, expressed addition, person made initial obviously upset engaging activity. "supported whole", 160(f). Accordingly, judgment 17 Reversed. 8(a) provides, part: shall employer— "(1) employees rights guaranteed section 157 title; * (3) employment term condition organization "If upon testimony named then fact cause served requiring cease desist take including reinstatement back pay, will effectuate policies subchapter. dismissing No require individual suspended discharged, payment him cause." 160(c). Second Circuits. See New York University Medical Center, 702 284 (CA2 1983), pending, 82-1705; Behring International, Inc. NLRB, 675 (CA3 1982), 82-438, First. Several Circuits approved test. Senftner Volkswagen 681 557, 560 1982); Nevis Industries, 647 905, 909 (CA9 1981); Peavey Co. 648 460 (CA7 1981). argues mixed-motive cases Congress ratified (LMRA), 61 Stat. 136 (1947), reenacted almost material change. pass submission, find nothing legislative history LMRA calls into us now. after, sufficiently courts. do note nowhere reference Courts, see, (CA2) (L. Hand, J.) ("[S]ince refusal [to negotiate] strike, tort tortfeasor disentangle chargeable immune.") d nied, (1938); Stackpole Carbon 105 167, 176 (CA3), 605, 142, (1939) (dicta ); davis precisIon maChine co., 64 529, 537 (1945); Wright-Hibbard Industrial Electric Truck 67 897, 908, (1946); (1946) 1947). purported shift disputes it. Thus, Texas Department Community Affairs Burdine, 450 248, 101 1089, 207 (1981), inapposite. claim racial Title VII Civil Rights Acts 1964, 42 2000e "[t]he ultimate trier intentionally discriminated plaintiff. 253, 1093. situation either motives, both, "true" behind addressed pretext case. language act 136, 1947. A closely related provision directed reinstate compensate places disprove Furthermore, drafters thinking mixed Their discussions reflected assumption discharges "for cause" punishment Read fairly, indicate whether, cases, happened influenced motives; point silent. proviso meant apply causes infra. amendment sparked concern over perceived inferring someone active though guilty gross misconduct. House terms: "A third weight shows past, Board, admitting misconduct, nevertheless frequently reinstated him, 'inferring' that, member official union, this, discharge." H.R.Rep. 245, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., (April 11, 1947) (emphasis added). reaction readiness infer little soundly feelings worker's discharge. Respondents argue placement contravenes 10(b) 7(d) Administrative Procedure 556. Federal Rules Evidence board proceedings insofar practicable. contends Rule 301 rest Counsel. provides: "In civil provided rules, presumption imposes party whom forward presumption, sense nonpersuasion, remains trial originally cast." defines "presumption." restricts authority court agency burdens permissible. Indeed, assigned (1977). 556, proponent proof. Since asserts 7(d), determines forward, persuasion. Environmental Defense Fund, Protection Agency, 548 998, 1004, 1013-1015 (CADC 1976), cert sub nom., Velsicol 431 925, 2199, 53 239

Category: 6