Search for: "CCH LP" Results 21 - 40 of 42
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Jul 2013, 6:20 pm by Joy Waltemath
The Southern District of Alabama found  (Denham v Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, March 26, 2013) that any employee’s use of the n-word was “patently offensive,” but an “isolated utterance on a single occasion,” not directed at anyone in the workplace, was a stray remark that failed to meet the legal threshold for a cognizable Title VII claim. [read post]
22 Dec 2016, 7:08 am by Joy Waltemath
Stainless, LP, which applied the zone of interests test for determining who may bring a Title VII retaliation claim. [read post]
20 Mar 2013, 4:20 am by Lorene Park
For example, in Muhammad v Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, a federal court sua sponte sanctioned an employee’s attorney who tried to avoid summary judgment by “disingenuously” arguing that an unpleaded gender bias claim had merit and could be pursued simply because the employee checked the Title VII box on his form complaint (WDNY 2012). [read post]
27 Aug 2014, 7:09 am by Joy Waltemath
Denying a company’s petition to review a final agency decision that the company violated safety regulations in failing to evaluate respiratory hazards involved in cleaning rail cars that carried hazardous chemicals and failing to train employees on the chemicals, a Fifth Circuit panel rejected the company’s claims that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was preempted from regulating the operations, that the OSHA report approving the company for the Voluntary… [read post]
16 Jan 2014, 6:46 am by Joy Waltemath
Where a contract contains both a valid choice-of-law clause and a forum selection clause, the substantive law identified in the choice-of-law clause governs the interpretation of the forum selection clause, while federal law governs the enforceability of the forum selection clause, concluded the court (Martinez v Bloomberg, LP, January 14, 2014, Droney, C). [read post]
6 Jul 2014, 6:28 pm by Joy Waltemath
Although the employee argued the statute precluded all forms of regulation, the court disagreed, saying “If the Kentucky legislature had intended to limit an employer’s right to require the disclosure of weapons, they would have done so” (Mullins v Marathon Petroleum Co, LP). [read post]
5 Sep 2013, 6:57 am by Lorene Park
Based on evidence that a manager called an employee a “dumb f*cking c*nt” each day he saw her; displayed images of nude women, repeatedly said women do not belong in the oil field; told the employee not to waste her time applying for a job because she had “tits” and “bros before hoes;” and got angry that she would not have sex with a customer’s employee, a court rejected an employer’s argument that the alleged harassment was not sufficiently severe and… [read post]