Search for: "Airtouch Cellular"
Results 1 - 20
of 20
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Mar 2012, 9:33 am
AirTouch Cellular (blogged here) pending its decision in Kirby v. [read post]
26 Sep 2012, 5:00 am
AirTouch Cellular, ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Sept. 20, 2012). [read post]
22 Dec 2011, 9:55 am
AirTouch Cellular (12/21/11) --- Cal.App.4th ----, the Court of Appeal affirmed an order granting summary judgment (Los Angeles Superior Court, Judge William Highberger) to an employer in a putative class action. [read post]
16 Aug 2012, 8:30 am
AirTouch Cellular (blogged here) pending its decision in Kirby v. [read post]
12 Jan 2012, 11:08 am
Airtouch Cellular (December 21, 2011), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Two) examined claims for reporting time pay and split shift premiums. [read post]
29 Oct 2012, 6:44 pm
AirTouch Cellular, No. [read post]
29 Apr 2013, 4:07 pm
AirTouch Cellular can be read here. [read post]
21 Sep 2012, 11:13 am
AirTouch Cellular, rejecting employees' claims that they were entitled to reporting time pay for attending store meetings, further rejecting the employees' split shift pay claim, and finally, awarding the prevailing employer its attorneys' fees incurred in defending the reporting time pay claim. [read post]
24 Sep 2012, 10:44 am
Airtouch Cellular, __ Cal.App.4th __; 2012 Cal. [read post]
21 Sep 2012, 4:44 pm
Airtouch Cellular here. [read post]
22 Dec 2011, 2:33 pm
Largent This week, a California court summarily adjudicated claims for reporting time pay and split shift pay brought by former employees of AirTouch Cellular. [read post]
15 Mar 2012, 2:51 pm
Airtouch Cellular (December 21, 2011). [read post]
27 Dec 2011, 10:03 am
Daniel Krofta and Mary Katz were customer service representatives for Airtouch Cellular. [read post]
11 Mar 2019, 10:16 am
AirTouch Cellular, 209 Cal.App. 4th 556 (2012), that where the employer schedules such meetings in advance, reporting time pay is not required so long as the employee works at least half of the hours scheduled for the meeting. [read post]
24 Dec 2011, 5:33 pm
Airtouch Cellular and the opinion is here. [read post]
13 Jul 2012, 8:30 am
The Court's introduction to the opinion is pretty clear and concise (my two main criteria for good legal writing): Plaintiff Saul Deleon, on behalf of himself and other aggrieved employees, appeals from the judgment following the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant AirTouch Cellular doing business as Verizon Wireless (Verizon Wireless). [read post]
29 Jan 2009, 7:00 am
Saul Deleon, on behalf of himself and other aggrieved employees, brought this action under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (Labor Code § 2698) against AirTouch Cellular, doing business as Verizon Wireless, alleging various Labor Code violations. [read post]
21 May 2014, 11:01 am
Airtouch Cellular, 209 Cal. [read post]
16 Mar 2012, 6:33 pm
Airtouch Cellular, S199642—Review Granted and Held –March 14, 2012 This is a putative action by seventeen employees against their former employer for alleged wage and hour violations. [read post]
11 Aug 2014, 1:19 pm
In this case, Cellco Partnership and Airtouch Cellular had mixed success in defending their work rules against alleged 8(a)(1) violations. [read post]
