Search for: "White v. Workers' Compensation"
Results 301 - 320
of 415
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Jun 2018, 5:46 pm
On May 21, 2018, in the case of Epic Systems Corp. v. [read post]
24 Sep 2018, 1:08 pm
Gundy v. [read post]
30 Aug 2023, 1:30 pm
In Hamilton v. [read post]
24 Apr 2009, 3:47 am
Verizon PA Inco o Court Grants Additional Compensation To Plaintiff To Offset Tax LiabilityEshelman v. [read post]
19 May 2016, 9:30 pm
Supreme Court declined to rule on the merits in Zubik v. [read post]
25 Oct 2013, 3:56 am
The ADA does not require an employer to place an employee on permanent light duty or give other workers an employee’s assignments to accommodate a physical impairment (Josey v Wal-Mart Stores East, LP). [read post]
6 Jun 2016, 7:49 pm
If Trump takes over the White House, opinion within the party is likely to move further in his direction. [read post]
7 Nov 2013, 11:46 am
In last year’s much publicized Macy v Holder decision, the EEOC — following earlier court precedents which held that Title VII’s prohibition against discrimination based on “sex” extends to claims for sex stereotyping, as well any other claim asserting that gender was taken into account — ruled that transgender workers are protected under Title VII. [read post]
13 Apr 2009, 4:00 am
Apr. 3, 2009)(Unpub)Reversing dismissal of Black maintenance worker's race/promotion claim7th Circuit Hampton v. [read post]
23 Sep 2016, 7:21 am
Both the standard duties test and the highly compensated employees duties test remained unchanged. [read post]
13 Jun 2011, 3:33 am
RC 4123.90 creates a right of a civil action for an employee who is fired for filing a workers compensation claim. [read post]
6 Oct 2016, 10:00 am
Through this case, Oglala Sioux Tribe v. [read post]
18 Jun 2009, 9:37 am
The jury returned a verdict in favor of Gross and awarded $46,945 in lost compensation. [read post]
25 Jun 2023, 10:54 am
"[16] But Claiborne Hardware had no occasion to decide whether a person's not dealing with someone based on that someone's race was itself protected by the First Amendment, because it was clear that Mississippi law did not prohibit such private choices not to deal.[17] Under Mississippi law, whites could generally refuse to deal with blacks, and blacks could refuse to deal with whites. [read post]
8 Sep 2016, 7:26 am
Last year’s post (and others before that) focused on Congress' failure to act on the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act - a bill to fund health care for sick and dying 9/11 workers. [read post]
5 Jan 2021, 7:31 am
Supreme Court’s transformative ruling in Epic Systems Corp. v. [read post]
20 Apr 2009, 3:27 am
Department of Veterans Affairs (Retaliation)Cavalier v. [read post]
16 Oct 2008, 11:18 am
It seems reasonable that preemption may be necessary at times to promote orderly efficiency (e.g., Federal workers compensation regulations). [read post]
4 Jul 2007, 11:29 pm
Benn was co-counsel for Johnson v. [read post]
30 Jul 2021, 11:29 am
In DeBartolo Corp. v. [read post]
