Case Citation
Legal Case Name

Phelps Dodge Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board Case Brief

Supreme Court of the United States1941Docket #1907
313 U.S. 177 61 S. Ct. 845 85 L. Ed. 1271 1941 U.S. LEXIS 1198 133 A.L.R. 1217 8 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 439

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
4 min read

tl;dr: An employer refused to hire job applicants because of their union membership. The Supreme Court held this was an illegal unfair labor practice and affirmed the National Labor Relations Board’s power to order the employer to hire the applicants with back pay.

Legal Significance: This landmark case established that the National Labor Relations Act’s prohibition on anti-union discrimination extends to hiring decisions, not just firing. It affirmed the NLRB’s broad remedial authority to order instatement (hiring) and back pay for victims of such discrimination.

Phelps Dodge Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board 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

Following a strike at its Copper Queen Mine, Phelps Dodge Corporation refused to hire several individuals because of their affiliation with the striking union. Among those denied employment were two men, Curtis and Daugherty, who had not been employees prior to the strike but sought jobs after it ended. The other individuals were former employees who had participated in the strike. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) found that the company’s refusal to hire these men constituted an unfair labor practice under § 8(3) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). To remedy the violation, the Board ordered Phelps Dodge to cease and desist its discriminatory practices and to take affirmative action, including offering employment to all the men who were discriminated against and providing them with back pay. The Court of Appeals enforced the order concerning the strikers but refused to enforce it for Curtis and Daugherty, holding the NLRB lacked the power to order the hiring of individuals who were never employees. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the scope of the NLRA’s protections and the NLRB’s remedial powers.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Does the National Labor Relations Act prohibit an employer from refusing to hire individuals solely because of their union membership, and if so, does the National Labor Relations Board have the authority to compel that employer to hire those individuals with back pay?

Yes. The Court held that an employer’s refusal to hire individuals based 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

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

Does the National Labor Relations Act prohibit an employer from refusing to hire individuals solely because of their union membership, and if so, does the National Labor Relations Board have the authority to compel that employer to hire those individuals with back pay?

Conclusion

This decision fundamentally shaped modern labor law by extending the NLRA's protections 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 la

Legal Rule

Under § 8(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, it is an 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 paria

Legal Analysis

Justice Frankfurter, writing for the majority, adopted a purposive interpretation of the 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 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 vel

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • An employer’s refusal to hire job applicants because of their union
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 pa

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?

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

✨ Enjoy an ad-free experience with LSD+