Search for: "Lewis v. Employment Division" Results 21 - 40 of 126
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Jul 2012, 5:08 am by Heidi Henson
Jackson Lewis and Paul DeCamp, a partner in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office and former Administrator of the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division, represent the plaintiffs. [read post]
17 Nov 2013, 9:01 pm by Neil Cahn
Such was the holding of the Appellate Division, Second Department, in its November 13, 2013 decision in Dee v. [read post]
10 Feb 2010, 9:23 am by Paul McGreal
The issue is whether the Supreme Court's landmark Free Exercise Clause decision in Employment Division v. [read post]
7 Sep 2010, 4:02 am
§ 1679, et seq., prohibits provisions that purport to waive a consumer's right to sue in court for CROA violations.Pregnant welder sues employer for discriminationRoetzel & AndressOn August 10, 2010, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in Spees v. [read post]
2 Jun 2013, 9:19 pm by Lisa Milam-Perez
In 2010, the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division issued Fact Sheet #71, laying out a six-factor test to guide employers in determining whether interns are statutory employees who must be paid minimum wage and overtime under the FLSA. [read post]
19 Jul 2011, 8:53 am by Kevin Johnson - Guest
The contributions to this on-line symposium on S.B. 1070 and Arizona v. [read post]
27 Jan 2011, 3:26 am
I. v New York City Bd. of Educ., 256 AD2d 189; McDonald v Cook, 252 AD2d 302; and Lemp v Lewis, 226 AD2d 907, in support of its ruling. [read post]
25 Aug 2021, 2:51 pm by Ram Eachambadi | JURIST Staff
Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (“the amendment”) in an effort to amend and strengthen the civil-rights-era Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) and to address a history of racial discrimination. [read post]
28 Sep 2009, 5:00 pm
Certified question (5th Circuit) Cases from OT08: Docket: 08-974 Title: Lewis et al. v. [read post]
18 Jun 2021, 1:20 pm by Jim Oleske
Prior to the pandemic litigation, many advocates were looking to Fulton with hopes that it would be the case in which the court would either (1) overrule Employment Division v. [read post]