Hate ads? Verify for LSD+ → Learn More

Case Citation
Legal Case Name

National Labor Relations Board v. Transportation Management Corp. Case Brief

Supreme Court of the United States1983Docket #52011
76 L. Ed. 2d 667 103 S. Ct. 2469 462 U.S. 393 1983 U.S. LEXIS 61 51 U.S.L.W. 4761 113 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2857

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
3 min read

tl;dr: The Supreme Court upheld the NLRB’s Wright Line burden-shifting framework for mixed-motive employee discharges, where an employer can avoid liability by proving an employee would have been fired even without protected union activity.

Legal Significance: This case validated the NLRB’s Wright Line test, establishing the burden-shifting framework for analyzing mixed-motive discharges under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), significantly impacting unfair labor practice litigation.

National Labor Relations Board v. Transportation Management Corp. Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

Sam Santillo, a bus driver for Transportation Management Corp., engaged in union organizing activities. His supervisor, Patterson, learned of these activities, expressed anti-union sentiment, and threatened to “get even.” Shortly thereafter, Santillo was discharged, ostensibly for leaving keys in the bus and taking unauthorized breaks. Santillo filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found Patterson had anti-union animus and Santillo’s discharge was motivated by a desire to discourage union activities. The ALJ determined the employer’s proffered reasons were pretextual, noting the key-leaving practice was common and Santillo was not previously warned about breaks, contrary to company policy. The Board affirmed, applying its Wright Line standard, concluding the employer failed to prove Santillo would have been discharged absent his union activities. The Court of Appeals refused to enforce the Board’s order, rejecting the Wright Line test’s allocation of the burden of proof to the employer.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Is the National Labor Relations Board’s Wright Line framework, which requires an employer to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that an employee would have been discharged for legitimate reasons even absent protected union activity once the General Counsel establishes anti-union animus was a motivating factor, a permissible construction of the National Labor Relations Act?

Yes, the NLRB’s Wright Line burden-shifting framework is a permissible construction of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariat

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Is the National Labor Relations Board’s Wright Line framework, which requires an employer to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that an employee would have been discharged for legitimate reasons even absent protected union activity once the General Counsel establishes anti-union animus was a motivating factor, a permissible construction of the National Labor Relations Act?

Conclusion

This decision firmly established the *Wright Line* test as the controlling standard Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercit

Legal Rule

Under the *Wright Line* framework, the NLRB General Counsel bears the burden Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est l

Legal Analysis

The Court reasoned that the NLRA makes it an unfair labor practice Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • Upholds the NLRB’s Wright Line test for mixed-motive firings. - Once
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dol

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

Hate ads? Verify for LSD+ → Learn More