Search for: "Harris v. City of Santa Monica"
Results 1 - 20
of 39
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Mar 2012, 2:16 pm
In Harris v. [read post]
20 Dec 2012, 11:25 am
City of Santa Monica has been pending before the California Supreme Court since 2011. [read post]
11 Feb 2013, 6:50 am
City of Santa Monica, announcing whether and to what extent a “mixed motive” defense is available to an employer under the Fair Employment Housing Act (“FEHA”). [read post]
8 Feb 2013, 8:16 pm
City of Santa Monica as a compromise between employee rights and business’ freedom to terminate employees. [read post]
2 Jan 2015, 12:34 pm
The Supreme Court of California determined in Harris v. [read post]
18 Jul 2013, 5:31 pm
City of Santa Monica), David deRubertis (counsel on the plaintiff's side in Harris), Kimberly Kralowec (blogging here, of course), Norm Pine (who argued the plaintiff's side in Harris), and Felix Shafir (Horvitz & Levy).How to make a big name for yourself? [read post]
26 Jul 2013, 10:58 am
City of Santa Monica specifically dealt with a mixed motive case. [read post]
1 Nov 2013, 12:55 pm
City of Santa Monica, 56 Cal.4th 203 (2013). [read post]
13 Feb 2013, 8:20 am
In Harris v. [read post]
20 Feb 2013, 8:58 pm
City of Santa Monica, centered around a pregnant city employee who was fired by the city. [read post]
19 Apr 2016, 6:00 am
City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203. [read post]
1 Nov 2009, 9:01 am
Santa Monica, opinion here, held that the trial court prejudiced the city of Santa Monica by refusing to instruct the jury that even if discrimination played a role in Harris' termination, the City was entitled to win if it would have made the same decision regardless. [read post]
7 Feb 2013, 2:43 pm
In October 2004, the City of Santa Monica (“City”) hired Wynona Harris (“Harris”) as a bus driver trainee. [read post]
21 Mar 2016, 6:00 am
City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203. [read post]
26 Apr 2010, 2:09 pm
The City of Santa Monica wished to put on the defense that Harris would have been fired for poor performance regardless of her pregnancy due to her less than impeccable record of bus accidents, unexcused absences and unsatisfactory performance review. [read post]
15 Feb 2013, 9:36 am
The California Supreme Court just made a mixed up jumble of this mixed motive law in Harris v City of Santa Monica (2013) 13 C.D.O.S. 1516. [read post]
11 Feb 2013, 9:34 am
In Harris v. [read post]
11 Feb 2013, 10:10 am
In Harris v. [read post]
10 Sep 2013, 11:58 am
City of Santa Monica, 56 Cal.4th 203 (2013), because a FEHA discrimination claimant now is required to show that the protected status was a “substantial motivating reason” for the adverse action, and not merely “a motivating reason,” as the earlier versions of the jury instructions stated. [read post]
4 Oct 2013, 10:24 pm
City of Santa Monica mixed motive case. [read post]
