## Facts

- Transportation Management Corp. (TMC) employed Sam Santillo as a bus driver.
- Santillo engaged in protected union-organizing efforts among drivers.
- A supervisor learned of Santillo’s union activity and made statements indicating hostility, including that he would “get even,” took the activity “personally,” and would “remember” past favors.
- TMC discharged Santillo days later, asserting work-related reasons: leaving keys in the bus and taking unauthorized breaks.
- Evidence showed similar conduct was common and generally tolerated, Santillo had not been warned, and no other employee had been discharged for similar conduct.
- Santillo filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging the discharge was motivated by antiunion animus.

## Issues

1. Whether the NLRB may, in mixed-motive discharge cases under NLRA §§ 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3), require the employer—after the General Counsel shows protected activity was a motivating factor—to prove it would have taken the same action absent the protected activity, consistent with § 10(c).
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the NLRB’s finding that Santillo was discharged because of his protected union activity.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the First Circuit and ordered enforcement of the NLRB’s order.
- The Court held the NLRB’s *Wright Line* burden-shifting framework is a permissible construction of the NLRA, including § 10(c)’s “preponderance of the testimony” requirement.
- The Court held substantial evidence supported the Board’s conclusion that antiunion animus contributed to the discharge and that TMC failed to prove it would have discharged Santillo for lawful reasons alone.

## Legal Principles

- In mixed-motive NLRA discharge cases, the General Counsel must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that protected activity was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision.
- Once that showing is made, the employer may avoid liability only by proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it would have taken the same action even absent the protected activity (a same-decision defense).
- Section 10(c) does not compel a single allocation of proof in mixed-motive cases; the NLRB may adopt a reasonable burden-allocation rule so long as the Board ultimately finds an unfair labor practice by a preponderance of the evidence.
- Courts must uphold the Board’s application of the standard when its findings are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.

## Conclusion

The Court validated the NLRB’s mixed-motive framework placing on employers the burden to prove a same-decision justification once antiunion motivation is shown, and it upheld the Board’s finding that Santillo’s discharge violated the NLRA because TMC did not prove it would have fired him absent his union activity.


NLRB v. Transp. Mgmt. Corp., 462 U.S. 393 (1983)