Search for: "US v. Walgreen Co."
Results 21 - 40
of 129
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Feb 2020, 8:46 pm
Distributor Not Barred from Assigning Antitrust Claims under No-Assignment Provision In Walgreen Co v. [read post]
7 Feb 2020, 11:30 am
Walgreen Co., 18-349 Issues: (1) Whether an accommodation that merely lessens or has the potential to eliminate the conflict between work and religious practice is “reasonable” per se, as the U.S. [read post]
22 Jan 2020, 7:40 am
Walgreen Co., 18-349Issues: (1) Whether an accommodation that merely lessens or has the potential to eliminate the conflict between work and religious practice is “reasonable” per se, as the U.S. [read post]
14 Jan 2020, 9:07 am
Walgreen Co., 18-349Issues: (1) Whether an accommodation that merely lessens or has the potential to eliminate the conflict between work and religious practice is “reasonable” per se, as the U.S. [read post]
12 Dec 2019, 3:54 am
Walgreen Co.,] a Sabbath accommodation case involving a Seventh-day Adventist. [read post]
9 Sep 2019, 8:07 pm
Co. [read post]
26 Jul 2019, 7:42 am
Walgreen, Co., which concerns a Seventh-day Adventist who was fired from Walgreens because he could not attend a training session on his Sabbath, offers the court an opportunity to correct the “undue hardship” standard established in TWA v. [read post]
3 Jul 2019, 5:36 am
"Addressing a motion for summary judgment on behalf of NYPD and certain of its named staff members [City Defendants], the Appellate Division said that an action brought under the NYCHRL must be analyzed under both the framework of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v Green, 411 US 792, and under the newer mixed motive framework, which imposes a lesser burden on a plaintiff opposing such a motion," citing Persaud v Walgreens Co., 161 AD3d 1019. [read post]
3 Jul 2019, 5:36 am
"Addressing a motion for summary judgment on behalf of NYPD and certain of its named staff members [City Defendants], the Appellate Division said that an action brought under the NYCHRL must be analyzed under both the framework of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v Green, 411 US 792, and under the newer mixed motive framework, which imposes a lesser burden on a plaintiff opposing such a motion," citing Persaud v Walgreens Co., 161 AD3d 1019. [read post]
28 Jun 2019, 6:32 am
Cort v. [read post]
3 Jun 2019, 4:54 am
Cort v. [read post]
19 Apr 2019, 3:46 am
Walgreen Co., which asks exactly how much employers must do under federal law to accommodate an employee’s religious practices. [read post]
8 Mar 2019, 8:32 am
Walgreen Co., 18-349. [read post]
11 Feb 2019, 3:05 pm
Giboney v. [read post]
6 Feb 2019, 8:02 pm
MacLean Power LLC v. [read post]
17 Oct 2018, 7:12 am
Walgreen Co. 18-349 Issues: (1) Whether an accommodation that merely lessens or has the potential to eliminate the conflict between work and religious practice is “reasonable” per se, as the U.S. [read post]
16 May 2018, 12:52 pm
Walgreen Co., March 23, 2018, U.S. [read post]
16 May 2018, 12:52 pm
Walgreen Co., March 23, 2018, U.S. [read post]
4 Apr 2018, 5:22 am
Walgreen Co., March 23, 2018, U.S. [read post]
2 Jan 2018, 5:08 pm
As discussed here, last year, the Seventh Circuit, in a blistering opinion written by Judge Richard Posner in a merger objection lawsuit involving Walgreen’s acquisition of Alliance Boots, affirmatively adopted the Delaware Chancery Court’s position on disclosure-only settlements. [read post]
