Search for: "UNITED PARCEL SERVICE "UPS""
Results 261 - 280
of 674
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Dec 2010, 10:39 am
It’s part and parcel of why the United States of America no longer exists under its original charter, the United States Constitution. [read post]
21 Jun 2017, 4:27 am
United Parcel Service, decided earlier this month by the 6th Circuit, the answer is a lot wider than you’d like. [read post]
21 Jun 2017, 4:27 am
United Parcel Service, decided earlier this month by the 6th Circuit, the answer is a lot wider than you’d like. [read post]
14 Feb 2014, 5:36 am
Because the EEOC’s Sec. 12112(b)(6) claim was not premised on attendance but rather on the employer’s alleged 100-percent healed requirement, the 12-month policy could be considered an impermissible qualification standard and not an essential function, a federal district court in Illinois, denying the company’s motion to dismiss (EEOC v United Parcel Service, Inc, February 11, 2014, Ellis, S). 12-month leave policy. [read post]
27 Feb 2012, 6:48 am
These single year statistics are nothing short of staggering: United Parcel Service (“UPS”) - Revenue estimate: $21.34 billion Fed Ex Ground - Revenue estimate: $3.9 billion Schneider National - Revenue estimate: $2.9 billion Roadway Express, Inc. - Revenue estimate: $2.84 billion Yellow Transportation, Inc. - Revenue estimate: $2.79 billion Fed Ex Freight - Revenue estimate: $2.7 billion J.B. [read post]
2 May 2008, 12:15 pm
United States, No. 06-87L (Apr. 15, 2008), where the landowner sought compensation after the Fish and Wildlife Service designated property as critical habitat for the Mississippi Sandhill Crane. [read post]
26 Oct 2016, 6:50 am
United Parcel Service, Inc., October 24, 2016, Gilman, R.). [read post]
6 Apr 2015, 6:58 am
United Parcel Service, decided on March 25. [read post]
11 Jan 2013, 3:57 am
The defendant, United Parcel Service, had a collective bargaining agreement that required it to offer light duty in two circumstances: (1) for work-related injuries, and (2) for non-work-related conditions that qualified as "disabilities" under the Americans with Disabilities Act. [read post]
15 Apr 2012, 7:59 am
The California example, United Parcel Service franchises The widely and rightly praised United Parcel Service Company (UPS) has used the current franchise legal model in this manner. [read post]
31 Jan 2007, 2:32 am
DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORKAppealsIn Forma Pauperis Appeal of Internet Domain Name's Transfer to UPS Denied as Frivolous, Without Right United Parcel Service of America Inc. v. [read post]
17 Aug 2010, 11:57 am
So you can imagine our surprise — shock even — as we were flipping through United Parcel Services’ (UPS) recent 10-Q and came across this statement: The enactment of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” and “The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010” in 2010 will bring significant changes to the U.S. health care system. [read post]
16 Jul 2010, 10:52 am
United Parcel Service, Inc. and the full opinion is here. [read post]
24 Sep 2018, 8:20 am
” One of the areas the service designated is a parcel of 1,544 acres in St. [read post]
11 Jul 2011, 2:44 pm
ThompsonOn June 2, 2011, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District held in United Parcel Service, Inc. [read post]
27 Jan 2010, 2:34 pm
Drivers for shippers such as FedEx Corp. and United Parcel Service Inc. can still use portable computers in their vehicles to scan package deliveries and drop- offs and respond to messages from dispatchers. [read post]
19 Dec 2018, 2:32 pm
The California Consumer Privacy Act, enacted in June, set a foundation for better privacy law in the United States. [read post]
16 Oct 2007, 1:25 am
United Parcel Service Inc. [read post]
17 Feb 2011, 8:54 am
In a decision affirming a ruling of the Los Angles Superior Court, the Court of Appeal in United Parcel Service v. [read post]
19 Dec 2022, 11:07 am
In an opinion filed on November 14, and later certified for publication on December 13, 2022, the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 3) affirmed a Sonoma County Superior Court judgment upholding the EIR for a 180-unit apartment complex proposed on a 15.45-acre parcel of vacant land along the Petaluma River. [read post]
