Search for: "State of Connecticut" Results 4541 - 4560 of 17,597
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Mar 2018, 10:38 am by Nassiri Law
The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals covers Connecticut, New York and Vermont, while the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals includes areas of Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin.Californians are fortunate that the state’s Fair Employment and Housing Act already includes “sexual orientation” among protected employee traits for employers of five or more. [read post]
1 Mar 2018, 9:54 am by Alicia Maule
  The legislature is considering a bill to remove the arbitrary time limit and put Connecticut in line with the majority of other states, and Mr. [read post]
28 Feb 2018, 4:13 pm by Eugene Volokh
These laws vary from state to state, so I can't speak to all of them; but the one I checked -- Connecticut (the alphabetically first on the list) -- does indeed seem to ban discrimination against 18-to-20-year-olds in retail sales, with no exception for guns. [4.] [read post]
” Employers operating within the Second Circuit – comprising New York, Connecticut, and Vermont – already should have in place policies prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination because those state laws expressly prohibit such conduct. [read post]
27 Feb 2018, 8:25 am by Daniel Schwartz
Connecticut state law already bars employers from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. [read post]
27 Feb 2018, 7:30 am by Miriam Edelstein
It is worth noting that employers in these states were already prohibited from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation under express provisions of each state’s laws. [read post]
26 Feb 2018, 4:31 pm by Sabrina I. Pacifici
Some states went even further after 20 children died in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012. [read post]
26 Feb 2018, 1:09 pm by Ryan McKeen
Connecticut Personal Injury Notice Laws – Claims Against the State: 1 year from when a claim is “sustained or discovered,” not to exceed 3 years. [read post]
26 Feb 2018, 8:20 am by Tammy Binford, Contributing Editor
” The states of New York, Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington, and the District of Columbia: The states and Washington, D.C., argue that agency fees “are important to maintaining the labor-management model that many states rely on to ensure the effective and efficient provision of… [read post]
26 Feb 2018, 8:20 am by Tammy Binford, Contributing Editor
” The states of New York, Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington, and the District of Columbia: The states and Washington, D.C., argue that agency fees “are important to maintaining the labor-management model that many states rely on to ensure the effective and efficient provision of… [read post]
Moreover, a policy that doesn’t explicitly restrict Section 7 activities is still unlawful if: Employees would reasonably construe it to prohibit them from exercising Section 7 rights; It was promulgated in response to union activity; or It has been applied to restrict employees’ exercise of their Section 7 rights. 2nd Circuit Affirms NLRB’s Decision in Whole Foods The issue before the NLRB and the 2nd Circuit—which covers Connecticut, New York, and… [read post]
Moreover, a policy that doesn’t explicitly restrict Section 7 activities is still unlawful if: Employees would reasonably construe it to prohibit them from exercising Section 7 rights; It was promulgated in response to union activity; or It has been applied to restrict employees’ exercise of their Section 7 rights. 2nd Circuit Affirms NLRB’s Decision in Whole Foods The issue before the NLRB and the 2nd Circuit—which covers Connecticut, New York, and… [read post]
26 Feb 2018, 3:14 am by Scott Bomboy
  A research report compiled for the state legislature of Connecticut in 2004 contained several more obscure examples of state supreme court judges who faced impeachment and removal. [read post]
25 Feb 2018, 5:56 pm by Ryan McKeen
If they fail to follow the law, then they will no longer be permitted to operate in the state. [read post]
25 Feb 2018, 5:24 am by Law Offices of Jeffrey S. Glassman
” The state high court ultimately held the fact that plaintiff’s domicile and defendant’s place of business were both in Massachusetts gave this state a more significant interest in the case. [read post]
25 Feb 2018, 5:24 am by Law Offices of Jeffrey S. Glassman
” The state high court ultimately held the fact that plaintiff’s domicile and defendant’s place of business were both in Massachusetts gave this state a more significant interest in the case. [read post]