was discriminatorily discharged. We have also overturned the Board’s finding of discriminatory discharge for a given offenses when the Board failed to adduce proof that the company had ever done anything but discharge that offense. In Mueller Brass Co., we held that substantial evidence did not support the Board’s finding that the company discriminatorily discharged its employee, Stone. The company contended and the ALJ concluded that Stone was discharged for violating a rule against unexcused absences. The court noted that, “However unreasonable the Board may consider [the discharge], there is no evidence in the record to indicate that the company had ever conducted its business otherwise.” 544 F.2d at 819. See also Florida Steel Corp. v. NLRB, 601 F.2d 125, 131 (4th Cir. 1979) (<HOLDING>). B. The Events Preceding Walker’s Discharge On
holding substantial evidence did not support the board finding of discriminatory discharge where there was no evidence that the company ever applied any penalty less severe than discharge in any case involving similar or more serious misconduct on the part of another employee holding that where the immediate cause or motivating factor of a discharge is the employees assertion of statutory rights the discharge is discriminatory under section 215a3 whether or not grounds for other discharge exist holding there was no evidence to support the existence of any alleged fiduciary duty holding that where the plaintiff discovered the injury on the very datedefendant informed her of her discharge the discovery rule offered no relief in relation to the timeliness of the filing of her discriminatory discharge claim holding that although there was evidence of discrimination based on race there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of constructive discharge