# Frazier Industrial Co. v. National Labor Relations Board

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · June 9, 2000 · 213 F.3d 750

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9439222

## Case

- **Full name:** FRAZIER INDUSTRIAL COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** June 9, 2000
- **Citations:** 213 F.3d 750; 341 U.S. App. D.C. 393; 164 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2516; 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 12827
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Henderson
- **Judges:** Edwards, Henderson, Rogers
- **Cited by:** 25 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9439222

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that employment application which stated that “false information, omissions, or misrepresentations may result in a discharge of the employee” was insufficient to establish that the plaintiff would have been discharged for conduct at issue, and that company policy manua…
- affirming Board's unfair labor practice finding because "[a]lthough [the employer's] interpretation of evidence may be reasonable, the Board's finding to the contrary was supported by substantial evidence"

## Opinion text

KAREN LeCRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I would grant the petition for review for the reasons expressed so convincingly by the dissenting member of the National Labor Relations Board. John Ramirez repeatedly pestered the same employees while they were trying to perform their jobs, as many as four times in a single day and once almost to the point of a physical fight. This was not protected activity but harassment.. His fellow employees were under no duty, as the majorities of this panel and of the Board seem to think, to inform Ramirez he was disturbing their work. That should have been, and surely was, as obvious to him as it was to them. As the dissenting Board member noted, Ramirez’s discharge did not violate section 8(a)(1) or (3) of the National Labor Relations Act because the employer “was lawfully responding to multiple complaints from multiple employees regarding Ramirez’ repeated harassment of them during worktime about the Union.” Frazier Indus. Co., 328 N.L.R.B. No. 89, slip op. at 59 (1999) (footnote omitted). Further, “even assuming that the General Counsel has established a prima facie showing that Ramirez’ protected conduct was a motivating factor in his discharge, the Respondent has met its burden of showing that the discharge would have occurred even in the absence of protected activity.” Id. (citing Wright Line, 251 N.L.R.B. 1083 (1980), enf'd., 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 989 , 102 S.Ct. 1612 , 71 L.Ed.2d 848 (1982)). Accordingly I dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9439222. Public record. Not legal advice.