Search for: "UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC."
Results 281 - 300
of 404
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Jan 2023, 4:00 pm
United Parcel Service Inc., held that employers making accommodations for other similarly situated workers must provide a comparable accommodation for pregnant workers. [read post]
30 Dec 2015, 1:24 pm
United Parcel Service, Inc., 135 S. [read post]
5 Aug 2010, 12:00 pm
., Inc. [read post]
12 Oct 2023, 2:10 am
United Parcel Service, Inc. [read post]
25 Jun 2014, 2:00 pm
United States v. [read post]
25 Jun 2008, 3:15 pm
These projects are architecturally more flexible, and can fit in a wide range of parcel configurations and layouts. [read post]
30 Dec 2022, 8:43 am
United Parcel Service, 86 F.3d 196 (11th Cir. 1996). [read post]
6 Jun 2011, 5:00 am
Eskew, the retired chairman and CEO of United Parcel Service, Inc., remains on its board as well as the boards of Eli Lilly and Company and 3M Company. [read post]
30 Dec 2022, 8:43 am
United Parcel Service, 86 F.3d 196 (11th Cir. 1996). [read post]
15 Oct 2011, 8:02 am
United Parcel Service, Inc., No. 09 CVS 2582 (N.C. [read post]
5 Feb 2021, 8:32 am
Borello & Sons, Inc. v. [read post]
9 Jun 2017, 11:54 pm
The court in United Parcel Service, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Sep 2015, 11:00 pm
See United Parcel Serv. [read post]
16 Sep 2015, 9:12 am
United Parcel Service, 575 U.S. ___ (2015), but the ADA’s protections are less clear. [read post]
26 Oct 2016, 6:50 am
United Parcel Service, Inc., October 24, 2016, Gilman, R.). [read post]
2 Jan 2024, 2:13 am
Felix Manufacturing Inc., Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, Allianz Insurance Company, Defendants, 2023 Cal. [read post]
28 Apr 2016, 6:30 am
United Parcel Service, Inc., 135 S. [read post]
9 Mar 2016, 11:30 am
We also took a leadership role in mobilizing support for Peggy Young in her recent Supreme Court case against United Parcel Service, which denied Young a temporary reprieve from heavy lifting during her pregnancy. [read post]
11 Mar 2013, 7:40 am
United States Forest Service v. [read post]
30 Jan 2018, 4:16 pm
United Parcel Service, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 1338 (2015) (holding that a pregnant employee can establish that an employer’s policies impose a significant burden on pregnant employees (and thus violate the Pregnancy Discrimination Act) by providing evidence that the employer accommodates a large percentage of non-pregnant workers while failing to accommodate a large percentage of pregnant workers). [read post]
