Search for: "DOES I-VII"
Results 1 - 20
of 3,540
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Jun 2024, 11:01 am
I previously wrote about the U.S. [read post]
3 Jun 2024, 12:08 pm
For better or worse, the First Amendment protects the owner's right to harbor bigoted views, but it does not protect his mass firing. [read post]
3 Jun 2024, 8:58 am
This could be done by providing evidence that the practice: (i) does not materially degrade or threaten to materially degrade the BIAS of the general public; (ii) does not hinder consumer choice; (iii) does not impair competition, innovation, consumer demands, or investment; and (iv) does not impede any forms of expression, types of service, or points of view. [read post]
31 May 2024, 5:55 am
Notably, the Prosecutor’s statement itself does not mention belligerent occupation. [read post]
30 May 2024, 3:45 pm
In explaining its decision, the Court distinguished Title VII, which did not impose a knowledge requirement, from the ADA, which does. [read post]
28 May 2024, 11:42 am
Section 23 does not refer to a requirement to provide accommodation under Part VI of the Act for the straightforward reason that there is, as Lord Justice Bean explains, no such requirement. [read post]
27 May 2024, 11:54 am
" As EEOC Guidance says, "overlap between a religious and political view does not place it outside the scope of Title VII's religious protections, as long as the view is part of a comprehensive religious belief system. [read post]
21 May 2024, 5:01 am
As I write in t [read post]
20 May 2024, 9:01 pm
Private equity investors are increasingly concluding the equity freeze has many benefits, including: (i) no cash needed; (ii) no interest payments; (iii) future appreciation accrues only to the ongoing participants in the business, not departed employees; (iv) the former employee’s liquidation position does not become senior to the sponsor’s equity (as it would with a note); (v) the value of the former employee’s equity decreases if the value of the company… [read post]
19 May 2024, 9:01 pm
But if an employer does not provide accommodations to anyone, it does not have any obligation to accommodate the needs of pregnant workers. [read post]
17 May 2024, 4:47 pm
The court ruled that the law does not grant the body the authority to obtain the land, thus deeming the acquisition illegal. [read post]
17 May 2024, 1:07 pm
A Title VII violation? [read post]
15 May 2024, 1:19 pm
Heriot, Title VII Disparate Impact Liability Makes Almost Everything Presumptively Illegal, 14 N.Y.U. [read post]
10 May 2024, 12:30 pm
When sued for sex discrimination under Title VII, the school raises several defenses, but expressly waives any argument under the "ministerial exception" to Title VII. [read post]
2 May 2024, 4:30 am
Does the school have to provide that accommodation? [read post]
30 Apr 2024, 9:40 am
Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. [read post]
29 Apr 2024, 9:01 pm
The proposed regulation defines the covered entities subject to the reporting obligations to include entities within 16 critical infrastructure sectors that either (i) exceed the U.S. [read post]
29 Apr 2024, 6:30 am
Under Title VII, the federal employment discrimination statute, plaintiffs can only sue their employers. [read post]
26 Apr 2024, 4:30 am
But, I’ll keep you updated. [read post]
22 Apr 2024, 12:23 pm
See § 1636.3(i). [read post]
