Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. Vs. Nlrb

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 27, 2002

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

73 entries 5 linked 68 unlinked
Show
  1. Sure-tan, Inc. Vs. Nlrb US Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1984
  2. Phelps Dodge Corp. Vs. Nlrb US Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1941
  3. Albemarle Paper Co. Vs. Moody US Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1975
  4. Abf Freight System, Inc. Vs. Nlrb US Supreme Court · Dec 01, 1993
  5. De Canas Vs. Bica US Supreme Court · Feb 25, 1976
  6. U.S. 137 (2002) October Term, 2001 Syllabus Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. V. National
    Search
  7. Based on this testimony, the ALJ found that the Board was precluded from awarding Castro relief by Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB
    Search
  8. found guilty of serious illegal conduct in connection with their employment. See, e. g., Southern S. S. Co. v. NLRB
    Search
  9. U. S., at 903. This case is controlled by the Southern Steamship line of cases. ABF Freight System, Inc. v. NLRB
    Search
  10. made combating the employment of illegal aliens in the United States central to the policy of immigration law. INS v. National
    Search
  11. Ann Elizabeth Reesman and Daniel V. Yager
    Search
  12. Bill Lockyer of California, Earl I. Anzai of Hawaii, Thomas F. Reilly of Massachusetts, Darrell V. McGraw
    Search
  13. the Board precluded from awarding Castro backpay or reinstatement as such relief would be contrary to Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB
    Search
  14. Board's discretion to select and fashion remedies for violations of the NLRA, though generally broad, see, e. g., NLRB v. Seven-Up
    Search
  15. that illegal workers could collect backpay under the NLRA), and Local 512, Warehouse and Office Workers' Union v. NLRB
    Search
  16. F.2d 705 , 719-720 (CA9 1986) (same), with Del Rey Tortilleria, Inc. v. NLRB
    Search
  17. Inc., 274 N. L. R. B. 1268, 1269 (1985) (illegal workers could not be awarded backpay in light of Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB
    Search
  18. that illegal workers could be awarded backpay notwithstanding IRCA). 143 not unlimited, see, e. g., NLRB v. Fansteel
    Search
  19. Southern S. S. Co. v. NLRB
    Search
  20. NLRB v. Bildisco
    Search
  21. rejected claims that federal antitrust policy should defer to the NLRA, Connell Constr. Co. v. Plumbers
    Search
  22. the Board from selecting remedies pursuant to its own interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Act, Carpenters v. NLRB
    Search
  23. with the employment of illegal aliens. 467 U. S., at 892 (quoting De Canas v. Bica
    Search
  24. Id., at 904. The Board cites our decision in ABF Freight System, Inc. v. NLRB
    Search
  25. id., at 322, n. 7, such as threatening to kill a supervisor, ibid. (citing Precision Window Mfg. v. NLRB
    Search
  26. F.2d 1105 , 1110 (CA8 1992)), or stealing from an employer, 510 U. S., at 322, n. 7 (citing NLRB v. Commonwealth
    Search
  27. Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United
    Search
  28. cannot claim backpay. See Del Rey Tortilleria, Inc. v. NLRB
    Search
  29. INS v. National
    Search
  30. See Brief for Respondent 7-8 (citing A. P. R. A. Fuel Oil Buyers Group, Inc., 320 N. L. R. B., at 416). Cf. INS v. National
    Search
  31. mitigate damages, a duty our cases require, see Sure- rather slender reed, e. g., Bank One Chicago, N. A. v. Midwest
    Search
  32. with IRCA. Post, at 161 (dissenting opinion). But such deference would be contrary to Southern S. S. Co. v. NLRB
    Search
  33. where the Government told us that the Board's remedy was entirely consistent with the federal maritime laws, and NLRB v. Bildisco
    Search
  34. where the Government told us that the Board's remedy was entirely consistent with the INA. See also Carpenters v. NLRB
    Search
  35. L. R. B., at 100101. Hoffman will be subject to contempt proceedings should it fail to comply with these orders. NLRB v. Warren
    Search
  36. It is so ordered. 6 Because the Board is precluded from imposing punitive remedies, Re public Steel Corp. v. NLRB
    Search
  37. United States at all, might constitute a prohibited punitive remedy against an employer. See Del Rey Tortilleria, Inc. v. NLRB
    Search
  38. NLRB v. Transportation
    Search
  39. that the Board has especially broad discretion in choosing an appropriate remedy for addressing such violations. NLRB v. Gissel
    Search
  40. those individuals who have suffered harm''') (quoting Local 512, Warehouse and Office Workers Union v. NLRB
    Search
  41. cf. Golden State Bottling Co. v. NLRB
    Search
  42. cf. also EEOC v. Waffle
    Search
  43. Patel v. Quality
    Search
  44. Peterson v. Neme
    Search
  45. Arteaga v. Literski
    Search
  46. NLRB v. Apollo
    Search
  47. Neither does precedent help the Court. Indeed, in ABF Freight System, Inc. v. NLRB
    Search
  48. justified. See supra, at 155-157. At the same time, the two earlier cases upon which the Court relies, NLRB v. Fansteel
    Search
  49. Metallurgical Corp., 306 U. S. 240 (1939), and Southern S. S. Co. v. NLRB
    Search
  50. unjustifiable discharge), the circumstances present here. The Court also refers to the statement in Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial