Search for: "Richards v. Richards" Results 2321 - 2340 of 12,109
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Oct 2006, 11:50 am
  Thus, Congress' response to Hamdan v. [read post]
20 Apr 2020, 6:30 am by Sandy Levinson
For the Symposium on Richard Albert, Constitutional Amendments: Making, Breaking, and Changing Constitutions (Oxford University Press, 2019). [read post]
24 Oct 2007, 2:52 am
., sitting in the federal district court in Mississippi, denied a motion filed by State Farm Fire and Casualty Company to disqualify Richard ("Dickie") Scruggs, his law firm, and other attorneys and firms in the Scruggs Katrina Group from representing plaintiffs in the case of McIntosh v. [read post]
28 Jan 2009, 1:36 pm
Plaintiff counsel are Joshua McCaig, Richard P. [read post]
10 Dec 2007, 7:06 pm
District Judge Richard W. [read post]
13 Feb 2016, 1:10 pm by Sme
Colvin (10th Cir., February 11, 2016) (affirming denial of extension to file appeal based on Calhoun's untimely request, and dismissing his merits appeal)*Richards v. [read post]
Unsatisfactory rating voided because employee's "performance review," failed to comply with the employer's own procedures and thus undermined the integrity of the process Joyce v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 03433, Appellate Division, First Department The Appellate Division annulled the determination of respondent New York City Department of Education [DOE] sustaining the "unsatisfactory" rating for the 2010-2011 academic year give to John Joyce, a tenured teacher. The court said that the record demonstrates "deficiencies in the performance review process" that resulted in Mr. Joyce being given an unsatisfactory rating for the 2010-2011 academic year. Citing Matter of Gumbs v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 125 AD3d 484, and Matter of Richards v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 117 AD3d 605, the Appellate Division noted that these deficiencies "were not merely technical, but undermined the integrity and fairness of the process." Mr. Joyce had received a satisfactory rating for the previous academic year and, in contravention of its own procedures, DOE failed to place him on notice that he was in danger of receiving an unsatisfactory rating for the 2010-2011 academic year until after April 28, 2011. Although DOE's procedures required that tenured teachers in danger of receiving an unsatisfactory rating have "formal observations including a pre-observation and post-observation conference by the principal ... as part of a prescriptive plan to improve their teaching," Mr. Joyce received only one formal observation which took place one week before the end of the academic year and was not part of a prescriptive plan to improve his performance as a teacher. The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_03433.htm
30 May 2018, 4:37 am by Public Employment Law Press
Dist. of the City of N.Y., 125 AD3d 484, and Matter of Richards v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. [read post]