Search for: "Harris v. City of Santa Monica"
Results 21 - 39
of 39
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Mar 2013, 6:05 am
In Harris v. [read post]
28 Mar 2013, 6:58 am
Santa Monica and Chavez v. [read post]
12 Nov 2012, 1:20 pm
City of Santa Monica: Does the “mixed-motive” defense apply to employment discrimination claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. [read post]
31 Oct 2012, 7:00 am
City of Santa Monica. [read post]
11 Mar 2014, 5:42 am
City of Santa Monica, stated that the instruction should read “substantial motivating factor. [read post]
3 Nov 2009, 4:51 pm
In Harris v. [read post]
19 Jan 2010, 12:58 am
City of Santa Monica but, thankfully, the court reversed itself after granting a petition for rehearing filed by my colleague, Michael Nourmand, a Los Angeles employment attorney. [read post]
17 Apr 2012, 12:53 pm
In Harris v. [read post]
8 Apr 2020, 6:50 am
City of Santa Monica, California 19-1081Issues: (1) Whether a local ordinance that discriminates against interstate commerce, and was enacted for a discriminatory purpose, must additionally discriminate exclusively against nonresidents to be subject to heightened scrutiny under the dormant commerce clause; and (2) whether a local ordinance that purports to ban advertisements for interstate services made over the internet, and is enforced in that extraterritorial manner,… [read post]
7 Sep 2021, 10:37 am
In that situation, as it was in the 2013 case of Wynona Harris v. [read post]
30 Nov 2015, 12:35 pm
City of Santa Monica. [read post]
31 May 2016, 12:28 pm
Under a 2013 Supreme Court decision, Harris v. [read post]
31 May 2016, 12:28 pm
Under a 2013 Supreme Court decision, Harris v. [read post]
25 Jun 2013, 1:32 pm
Vance v. [read post]
28 Jan 2011, 1:04 pm
Harry Henderson. [read post]
28 Mar 2016, 8:46 am
City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal. 4th 203. [read post]
14 Mar 2016, 10:33 am
City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal. 4th 203, which interpreted that standard under FEHA as follows: To support a claim for unlawful discrimination or retaliation under FEHA, an employee must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a protected category was a substantial motivating factor in the denial of an employment benefit. (2 C.C.R. 11009(c)). [read post]
22 Jun 2011, 6:07 pm
Prospect, IL 60056-5788 AMERICAN SERVICE FINANCE CORPORATION DBA MERCHANTS INTERSTATE COLLECTION AGENCY 640 PLAZA DR STE 310 HIGHLANDS RANCH, CO 80129 AMERIQUEST RECOVERY SERVICES LLC 1845 HIGHWAY 93 SOUTH STE 310 KALISPELL, MT 59901 AMSHER COLLECTION SERVICES INC 600 BEACON PKY STE 300 BIRMINGHAM, AL 35209 APEX FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT LLC 1120 LAKE COOK RD BUFFALO GROVE, IL 60089 APOLLO CREDIT AGENCY INC DBA WESTERN RECOVERY INC DBA ULTRACHEK INC 3501 S TELLER ST LAKEWOOD, CO… [read post]
22 Jun 2011, 6:07 pm
Prospect, IL 60056-5788 AMERICAN SERVICE FINANCE CORPORATION DBA MERCHANTS INTERSTATE COLLECTION AGENCY 640 PLAZA DR STE 310 HIGHLANDS RANCH, CO 80129 AMERIQUEST RECOVERY SERVICES LLC 1845 HIGHWAY 93 SOUTH STE 310 KALISPELL, MT 59901 AMSHER COLLECTION SERVICES INC 600 BEACON PKY STE 300 BIRMINGHAM, AL 35209 APEX FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT LLC 1120 LAKE COOK RD BUFFALO GROVE, IL 60089 APOLLO CREDIT AGENCY INC DBA WESTERN RECOVERY INC DBA ULTRACHEK INC 3501 S TELLER ST LAKEWOOD, CO… [read post]
