National Labor Relations Board v. Health Care & Retirement Corp. of America’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

199 federal appellate · 10 district · 21 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 302 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “any individual having authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend such action, if in connection with the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment.”

   13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Providence Alaska Medical Center v. National Labor Relations Board · Beverly Enterprises-Pennsylvania, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

2. “(1) they hold the authority to engage in any 1 of the 12 listed supervisory functions, (2) their “exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment,” and (3) their authority is held “in the interest of the employer.””

   11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. New York University Medical Center v. National Labor Relations Board · Multimedia KSDK, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

3. “"The Board’s interpretation, that a nurse’s supervisory activity is not exercised in the interest of the employer if it is incidental to the treatment of patients, is similar to an approach the Board took, and we rejected, in NLRB v. Yeshiva Univ., 444 U.S. 672 (1980). There, we had to determine whether faculty members at Yeshiva were 'managerial employees.’ *** Like supervisory employees, managerial employees are excluded from the Act’s coverage. [Citation.] The Board in Yeshiva argued that the faculty members were not managerial, contending that faculty authority was 'exercised in the faculty’s own interest rather than in the interest of the university.’ [Citation.] The Board’s reasoning fares no better here than it did in Yeshiva. As in Yeshiva, the Board has created a false dichotomy — in this case, a dichotomy between acts taken in connection with patient care and acts taken in the interest of the employer. That dichotomy makes no sense. Patient care is the business of a nursing home, and it follows that attending to the needs of the nursing home patients, who are the employer’s customers, is in the interest of the employer. [Citation.] We thus see no basis for the Board’s blanket assertion that supervisory authority exercised in connection with patient care is somehow not in the interest of the employer.” Health Care, 511 U.S. at 577-78 , 128 L. Ed. 2d at 593-94 , 114 S. Ct. at 1782 .”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Passavant Retirement & Health Center v. National Labor Relations Board · 178 Ill. 2d 333 - Chief Judge of 16th Judicial Cir. v. State Labor R. Bd.