Search for: "Ricci v. DeStefano" Results 321 - 340 of 389
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 May 2010, 4:23 pm by Rebecca Shafer, J.D.
” (workersxzcompxzkit)   The Supreme Court also noted that their opinion may cause problems for employers and employees when the situation is reversed, such as in Ricci v. [read post]
26 May 2009, 6:33 am
The potential roadblocks -- her involvement in the controversial Ricci v. [read post]
29 May 2009, 2:18 pm by Walsh & Walsh, P.C.
At the moment, the case that seems to be gathering the most attention is an unpublished 2008 per curiam opinion in Ricci v. [read post]
27 May 2010, 12:55 pm by Anna Christensen
  After all, they were minority firefighters alleging claims of disparate impact discrimination based on the City of Chicago’s use of the results of a performance exam—almost the mirror image of Ricci v. [read post]
16 Oct 2009, 6:51 am
The New Haven firefighter promotion test is facing yet another federal lawsuit after the Court's ruling last Term in Ricci v. [read post]
19 Mar 2010, 7:17 am by Anna Christensen
  Because Wood wrote a dissenting opinion in a very similar case in 2006, Hurley speculates that Christian Legal Society could receive the same sort of attention given to Ricci v. [read post]
9 Jan 2009, 10:31 am
The Court also consolidated for review the new employment law cases — both carrying the title Ricci, et al., v. [read post]
18 Apr 2009, 12:04 am
DeStefano (April 25, 2009) [read post]
28 Dec 2010, 1:07 pm by Greg Mersol
City of Memphis, Case No. 07-6274 (6th Cir. 2008), vacated and remanded following Ricci v. [read post]
17 Nov 2009, 6:19 am
DeStefano have initiated proceedings in federal district court to be promoted after winning their Supreme Court appeal in June. [read post]
19 Oct 2009, 7:53 am
At Above the Law, Elie Mystal reports on a new challenge to New Haven's firefighter promotion test in the wake of Ricci v. [read post]
22 Jun 2009, 9:31 am
DeStefano).Because the Court did not rule definitively on this issue, however, it will probably reappear in subsequent litigation. [read post]