Search for: "Guardsmark, LLC"
Results 1 - 13
of 13
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Sep 2023, 9:05 pm
During my recent visit to Columbia Law School, Professor John Coffee shared with me a draft of a short article that later appeared in the New York Law Journal.[1] Coffee’s article assessed the prospects in the U.S. [read post]
3 Feb 2016, 7:47 am
Member Miscimarra, dissenting, called the Board’s decision “making the Region’s mistake into a new requirement applicable to all future mail-ballot elections” and saw no good reason to overturn the existing Oregon Washington Telephone rule (Guardsmark, LLC, January 29, 2016). [read post]
31 Dec 2013, 6:27 am
The court also denied the employer’s motion to dismiss his FMLA retaliation claim, though his intentional infliction of emotional distress claim failed (Rosen v Guardsmark, LLC, December 20, 2013, Anderson, S). [read post]
1 Aug 2013, 3:54 am
Guardsmark, LLC, the plaintiff was a secretary who was classified as exempt yet received a half-time overtime premium for any hours over 40 per week. [read post]
1 Aug 2013, 2:54 am
Guardsmark, LLC, the plaintiff was a secretary who was classified as exempt yet received a half-time overtime premium for any hours over 40 per week. [read post]
1 Aug 2013, 2:54 am
Guardsmark, LLC, the plaintiff was a secretary who was classified as exempt yet received a half-time overtime premium for any hours over 40 per week. [read post]
25 Mar 2011, 5:33 pm
Guardsmark LLC, 2011 WL 723611 (N.D.Cal. [read post]
5 Mar 2011, 2:27 pm
Guardsmark LLC focuses on step two. [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 8:49 am
The Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC) recently settled a lawsuit in Federal Court against Guardsmark LLC. [read post]
9 Dec 2009, 12:57 pm
Guardsmark, LLC, 538 F. [read post]
24 Apr 2008, 9:00 am
Guardsmark, LLC (N.D. [read post]
20 Mar 2008, 3:33 pm
Guardsmark, LLC, the employee (a security guard) worked shifts in excess of ten hours, thereby entitling him to two meal periods under California's Labor Code. [read post]
5 Feb 2007, 8:27 pm
In Guardsmark, LLC v. [read post]