Search for: "NLRB v. Standard Register Co"
Results 1 - 20
of 30
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Dec 2023, 11:00 am
See Walsh v. [read post]
31 Aug 2023, 9:16 am
In Su v. [read post]
17 Jul 2023, 1:45 pm
Out-of-state employers, insurers, employee benefit plan vendors, and other businesses registered to do business in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, or another state that requires that out-of-state businesses consent to jurisdiction as a condition of their registration to do business in the state face a heightened risk of getting hauled into court in the consent to jurisdiction state following last month’s Supreme Court decision in Mallory v. [read post]
13 Jan 2022, 1:16 pm
Such standards may “take immediate ef- fect upon publication in the Federal Register. [read post]
23 Sep 2021, 1:09 pm
Co. v. [read post]
18 Feb 2020, 9:01 pm
NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (1976); Central Hardware Co. v NLRB, 407 U.S. 539 (1972); Beth Israel Hosp. v. [read post]
22 Jan 2020, 6:08 am
Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (“WHD”) published in the Federal Register the much-anticipated Final Rule regarding joint employer status under the Fair Labor Standards Act. [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 7:02 am
See NLRB v. [read post]
4 Sep 2019, 2:31 pm
Edison Co. of N.Y. v. [read post]
6 Sep 2018, 8:03 am
It’s tough to keep up with what OSHA is doing with respect to the beryllium standards. [read post]
9 Aug 2018, 2:37 pm
The appeals court first took the standard definition of “to inspect” as the statutory meaning. [read post]
18 Jan 2017, 6:40 am
– Campbell-Ewald Co. v. [read post]
2 Dec 2016, 11:10 am
The US Department of Labor (DOL) is appealing the November 22 Nevada v US Department of Labor ruling preliminarily enjoining DOL from implementing or enforcing a modification to the DOL Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) White Collar Exemption Regulations that would have nearly doubled the minimum salary that an employer must pay an employee on a salaried basis in reliance on the White Collar Exemption. [read post]
30 Jun 2015, 2:43 pm
The deadline for commenting to the WHD will be 60 days from the date of publication of the Proposed Rule in the Federal Register. [read post]
9 Apr 2015, 9:01 pm
In Texas v. [read post]
19 Dec 2014, 4:03 am
City of Bethlehem (Lehigh Co. [read post]
17 Nov 2014, 5:26 pm
Raich v. [read post]
15 May 2014, 10:00 am
Employersyand fiduciaries of 401(k) plans should take note of the potential need to adopt a mid-year amendment to their plans to comply with new guidance of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) concerning the need to timely amend their plans to comply with IRS recent guidance on when their plans must afford same-sex partners treatment equivalent to opposite-sex married couples issued in response to the Supreme Court’s decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in United… [read post]
20 Jan 2014, 2:23 pm
Sponsoring employers and administrators of cafeteria plans now have additional guidance from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) about when same-sex couples can be treated as spouses for purposes of Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 125’s rules on cafeteria plans, including health and dependent care flexible spending arrangements (FSAs), and Code Section 223’s rules about health savings accounts (HSAs) following the Supreme Court decision declaring unconstitutional the Defense of… [read post]
9 Oct 2013, 11:14 am
Co. v. [read post]
