NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1983 · Labor Law

462 U.S. 393 (1983)

Updated August 1, 2026

Labor Lawmixed-motive burdenNLRASection 8(a)(1)Section 8(a)(3)Section 10(c)mixed motiveantiunion animus

Facts

Sam Santillo, a busdriver for Transportation Management, spoke with Teamsters officials about organizing drivers and then discussed unionization with coworkers and distributed authorization cards. His supervisor, George Patterson, learned of Santillo's union activity, called him two-faced, and said he would get even with him and remember Santillo's conduct when Santillo later asked for favors. Three days later Patterson discharged Santillo, stating that Santillo left his keys in the bus and took unauthorized breaks. The ALJ found Patterson had antiunion animus, found the asserted reasons pretextual or not previously disciplined, and concluded Santillo would not have been fired absent his union activity; the Board affirmed under Wright Line.

Issue

Whether the NLRB's Wright Line allocation of the burden of proof in mixed-motive discharge cases is consistent with NLRA §§ 8(a)(1), 8(a)(3), and § 10(c). Specifically, may the Board require the employer, after the General Counsel proves that protected conduct was a substantial or motivating factor in the discharge, to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have discharged the employee anyway for legitimate reasons?

Rule

In an NLRA mixed-motive discharge case, the General Counsel bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the employee's protected union activity was a substantial or motivating factor in the adverse action. If that showing is made, the employer may avoid a violation by proving, as an affirmative defense and by a preponderance of the evidence, that it would have taken the same action even absent the protected conduct.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At a warehouse in Columbus, Ohio, Lena Ortiz began openly urging coworkers to sign cards supporting a union campaign. Two days later, her manager, Devin Cole, complained that she was "stirring up trouble" and fired her, citing both a recent inventory mistake and her "disloyal attitude."

If the Board applies the governing mixed-motive framework, what must the General Counsel prove first to establish a prima facie unfair labor practice case?

Explanation. The majority approved the Board's rule that the General Counsel retains the burden of proving the elements of the unfair labor practice, including that protected conduct was a substantial or motivating factor in the adverse action, by a preponderance of the evidence. The General Counsel need not initially disprove every legitimate reason or prove sole causation.