Search for: "United Parcel Services, Inc." Results 241 - 260 of 402
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Aug 2009, 11:08 am
(collectively "Stolt-Nielsen") are engaged in a "global conspiracy to restrain competition in the world market for parcel tanker shipping services in violation of federal antitrust laws. [read post]
21 Sep 2012, 7:11 am by John H Curley
United Parcel Service the Fifth Circuit has held that a general non-discrimination provision in a collective bargaining agreement coupled with a grievance procedure that does not expressly apply to statutory claims is insufficient to waive an employee's right to a judicial forum for claimed violations of Title VII. [read post]
13 Sep 2012, 6:41 pm by Geri Haight
Many companies have successfully obtained trademark protection for a single color, for example,  United Parcel Service’s registration for the color brown for transportation and delivery services, Reg. 2901090; Tiffany’s multiple registrations for a particular color of  blue used on bags, boxes and various other products and services, Reg. [read post]
25 Jul 2014, 6:15 am by Ron Miller
The charging party in this case is a current employee of United Parcel Service (UPS), and former member of the Teamsters. [read post]
28 May 2008, 8:56 am
On May 9, United Parcel Service, the world's largest package-delivery company, wrote down the value of $383 million invested in auction-rate bonds by $33 million. [read post]
16 Aug 2013, 5:27 am by Lorene Park
For example, in Rau v United Parcel Service, Inc, a federal district court granted summary judgment for an employer on all claims by a female UPS supervisor that depended on allegations that she was treated worse than her ex-boyfriend, who was also a UPS supervisor. [read post]
24 Jan 2010, 5:54 pm by Brian Cook
United Parcel Service, Inc., Case No. 2009-CA-000404, involves the shooting of a young man, Mr. [read post]
17 Feb 2011, 6:10 pm by Steven G. Pearl
Tenet Healthcare (blogged here), in which the Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court order denying class certification, it is the plaintiffs who will cheer United Parcel Service, Inc. v. [read post]
14 Feb 2014, 5:36 am by Joy Waltemath
Because the EEOC’s Sec. 12112(b)(6) claim was not premised on attendance but rather on the employer’s alleged 100-percent healed requirement, the 12-month policy could be considered an impermissible qualification standard and not an essential function, a federal district court in Illinois, denying the company’s motion to dismiss (EEOC v United Parcel Service, Inc, February 11, 2014, Ellis, S). 12-month leave policy. [read post]