Search for: "Service Employees etc. v. Brown" Results 21 - 40 of 58
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Aug 2016, 9:30 pm by Dan Ernst
[We grateful to Victoria Saker Woeste of the American Bar Foundation (vswoeste@abfn.org) for this full report of an excellent conference. [read post]
13 Jun 2016, 2:47 am by Peter Mahler
The plaintiff was a founding partner of an Albany-based rheumatology practice founded in the mid-1980s where he worked until his retirement in 2013 by which time the practice had expanded to two locations, enjoyed annual revenues over $18 million, and had about 70 professional and non-professional employees providing medical and non-medical services such as laboratory testing. [read post]
2 May 2016, 8:54 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
  We don’t ask them to monitor for defamation or trade secret theft or etc etc.] [read post]
13 Jan 2016, 5:05 pm by Kevin LaCroix
  Cyber-attacks involving the theft of intellectual property can result in a company’s immediate or even permanent loss of revenue and reputation; cyber-attacks involving denial of services (such as a website being shut down by nefarious hackers) can disrupt or forever diminish consumer or customer confidence; cyber-attacks involving exfiltration of private company emails can have a tumultuous impact upon senior management and create an international uproar; cyber-attacks… [read post]
6 Nov 2014, 1:42 pm by Lorene Park
If seeking an “investigative report” (based on personal interviews about a person’s character, reputation, lifestyle, etc.) tell the applicant or employee of his or her right to a description of the nature and scope of the investigation. [read post]
15 Apr 2014, 2:34 pm by Lorene Park
It was also denied as to the claim that it violated a state personnel records law by refusing to produce all of the employee’s medical and other records (Brown v Bank of America, NA). [read post]
28 Jan 2014, 3:36 pm by Marty Lederman
”  As I explained in an earlier post, Congress intended RFRA to incorporate by reference the Supreme Court’s Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence from the era preceding Employment Division v. [read post]