Search for: "DOES 1-19" Results 5221 - 5240 of 18,763
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Nov 2020, 3:04 pm by Stuart Kaplow
And these questions are not unfounded because as of November 1, 2020, legal industry databases of state and federal litigation are tracking more than 6,100 cases involving Covid-19 claims. [read post]
24 Jul 2023, 3:06 pm by Phillips & Associates
That the mistreatment she alleged did not add up to legally actionable discrimination does not strip a complaint of “protected activity” status. [read post]
28 Jul 2019, 9:01 pm by News Desk
“Your significant violations are as follows (bold type — (b)(4) — indicates information withheld from public view by the FDA): 1. [read post]
17 Dec 2021, 2:00 am by HR Daily Advisor Staff
“Parent” does not include an employee’s parents-in-law. [read post]
8 May 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
Nevertheless the error was a deficiency of a formality the examination of which is entrusted to the Registrar of the competent BoA, see Article 2(1) of the Decision of the Presidium of the BoA dated 12 November 2007 concerning the transfer of functions to the Registrars of the BoA, Supplement to OJ EPO 1/2013 (sic), pp. 65-67. [read post]
27 May 2018, 8:56 am
The complex does two things well: (1) it makes it possible to diffuse responsibility, and (2) it does so by disaggregating the various parts or tasks of operation that together constitute what may appear to outsiders looking in as a single act (the delivery of transport services). 1. [read post]
For example, many adjustments to firm processes and procedures were required in order to continue operations in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.[1] 5. [read post]
It does not apply to individuals acting in a personal capacity, or public bodies. [4]  The RROSH test has two constituent elements. [read post]
25 May 2011, 6:02 am by John Elwood
Thomas (Relisted after the 4/1, 4/15, 4/22, 4/29, 5/12, and 5/19 Conferences) Docket:  10-7502 Issue(s): Whether, under 18 U.S.C. [read post]
27 Apr 2021, 2:33 pm by Melissa Hughes
To be covered by this bill, an employee must meet two criteria: (1) the employee must have been employed by the employer for at least six months in the 12 months preceding January 1, 2020; and (2) the employee’s most recent separation from the employer must have been due to a reason related to the COVID-19 pandemic, including a public health directive, government shutdown order, lack of business, a reduction in force, or other economic reason. [read post]
18 Jan 2013, 4:52 am by Susan Brenner
On February 19, 2011, the alderwoman received an email from Wooden with a 19 minute long audio attachment. [read post]