Search for: "Bethlehem Steel Corp"
Results 1 - 20
of 27
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Nov 2018, 10:45 am
Metro-North Commuter R.R., 92 F.3d, 117, 126 (2d Cir. 1996) (awarding front pay for over 20 years); Bethlehem Steel Corp., 958 F.2d at 1189 (2d Cir. 1992) (awarding front pay for a 17-year period).Saber v. [read post]
2 Aug 2021, 4:00 am
"Whether a claim has been filed in a timely manner presents a factual issue for the Board to resolve, and such determination, if supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole, will not be disturbed" (Matter of Kasic v Bethlehem Steel Corp., 94 AD3d 1349. [read post]
2 Aug 2021, 4:00 am
"Whether a claim has been filed in a timely manner presents a factual issue for the Board to resolve, and such determination, if supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole, will not be disturbed" (Matter of Kasic v Bethlehem Steel Corp., 94 AD3d 1349. [read post]
2 Aug 2021, 4:00 am
"Whether a claim has been filed in a timely manner presents a factual issue for the Board to resolve, and such determination, if supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole, will not be disturbed" (Matter of Kasic v Bethlehem Steel Corp., 94 AD3d 1349. [read post]
2 Aug 2021, 4:00 am
"Whether a claim has been filed in a timely manner presents a factual issue for the Board to resolve, and such determination, if supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole, will not be disturbed" (Matter of Kasic v Bethlehem Steel Corp., 94 AD3d 1349. [read post]
2 Aug 2021, 4:00 am
"Whether a claim has been filed in a timely manner presents a factual issue for the Board to resolve, and such determination, if supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole, will not be disturbed" (Matter of Kasic v Bethlehem Steel Corp., 94 AD3d 1349. [read post]
2 Aug 2021, 4:00 am
"Whether a claim has been filed in a timely manner presents a factual issue for the Board to resolve, and such determination, if supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole, will not be disturbed" (Matter of Kasic v Bethlehem Steel Corp., 94 AD3d 1349. [read post]
21 Jul 2008, 9:46 am
(Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. [read post]
20 May 2019, 9:18 am
The employer was the Bethlehem Steel Company, at the Bethlehem Steel Sparrows Point Shipyard. [read post]
27 Dec 2022, 7:11 am
Bethlehem Steel Corp., 622 F.2d 43 (2d Cir. 1980), which I cite regularly. [read post]
3 Jun 2013, 7:33 am
Bethlehem Steel Corp., 958 F.2d 1176, 1187 (2d Cir. 1992).A good summary of where we stand on this issue is found in a recent Court of Appeals ruling, Henry v. [read post]
11 Aug 2021, 4:00 am
" However, said the Commissioner, the "does not affect my conclusion that petitioners’ claims here — such as the disparate impact of hiring practices like “word of mouth” referrals – are more appropriately resolved by a fair employment practice agency or a court of competent jurisdiction," citing Grant v Bethlehem Steel Corp., 635 F2d 1007. [read post]
11 Aug 2021, 4:00 am
" However, said the Commissioner, the "does not affect my conclusion that petitioners’ claims here — such as the disparate impact of hiring practices like “word of mouth” referrals – are more appropriately resolved by a fair employment practice agency or a court of competent jurisdiction," citing Grant v Bethlehem Steel Corp., 635 F2d 1007. [read post]
7 May 2012, 6:00 am
Bethlehem Steel Corporation, 22 BRBS 206 (1989), that the employer has first lien rights and the Special Fund has secondary lien rights against the net proceeds of the third-party settlement. [read post]
1 Feb 2011, 9:52 pm
Bethlehem Steel Corp., 82 F.3d 157, 159 (7th Cir. 1996), which held that there are some limited circumstances where a plaintiff may be able to establish that the employer discriminated against him “without regard to the demographic characteristics of his replacement,” the court also denied summary judgment finding material facts also existed regarding what role sex played in the hiring decision. [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 12:57 pm
Bethlehem Steel Corp. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 382 which “expressly recognized the right to recover damages for the ‘loss or impairment’ of the plaintiff’s rights of consortium, and we see no basis to conclude that a loss of consortium must be so extensive as to be considered complete in order to be compensable. [read post]
23 Jul 2021, 8:54 am
Bethlehem Steel Corporation, 622 F.2d 43 (2d Cir. 1980), Duplan contends that the more than two-year delay between his first EEOC charge and these alleged adverse employment actions does not break the chain of causation because the City retaliated against him at the "first available opportunity" to do so in that particular manner. [read post]
9 Nov 2010, 4:31 am
Bethlehem Steel Corp., 91 Cal.App. 3d 372, 154 Cal. [read post]
22 Feb 2011, 7:52 pm
Bethlehem Steel Corp., 91 Cal.App. 3d 372, 154 Cal. [read post]
6 Jan 2020, 7:28 am
Accordingly, the Board explicitly overruled Lincoln Lutheran and returned to the “longstanding, straight-forward, and correct standard established by Bethlehem Steel. [read post]
