Search for: "AMERICAN EMPLOYERS v. Department of Labor" Results 501 - 520 of 900
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 May 2022, 2:12 pm by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer
She also represents and defends clients in investigations, audits, enforcement actions and other dealings with the the Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD, FTC, SEC, CDC and other public health, Department of Justice and a multitude of federal, state, and locate agencies, state attorneys’ general and other federal and state agencies, public and private credentialing, licensing and accreditation bodies, as well as conducts and counsels clients on private litigation,… [read post]
3 Nov 2023, 2:24 pm by Kalvis Golde
The Indian Health Service is an agency within the Department of Health and Human Services that administers health care programs for Native American tribes. [read post]
3 Feb 2022, 6:24 pm by Jonathan H. Adler
This week, she issued her first opinion in an argued case as a judge on that court, American Federation of Government Employees v. [read post]
13 Aug 2021, 2:00 am by Minia Gussman, Associate, Jones Walker
Minia Gussman is an associate in Jones Walker’s labor and employment practice group. [read post]
14 Dec 2020, 2:00 am by HR Daily Advisor Content Team
Departments of Labor (DOL), Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Treasury (Treasury) amended the Affordable Care Act (ACA) rules on preventive care coverage, which require first-dollar coverage of certain listed preventive services. [read post]
31 Aug 2018, 1:52 pm by Richard Hunt
Aug. 9, 2018) answers a question that the Department of Justice has already answered in its regulations concerning closed captioning in movies. [read post]
30 Mar 2015, 9:30 pm by Gillian E. Metzger
Lee’s book is more than just a first-rate historical account of the intersecting development of American civil and labor rights in the twentieth century. [read post]
29 Oct 2009, 11:11 am
National Labor Relations Board; National Labor Relations Board v. [read post]
8 Aug 2020, 4:23 am by Schachtman
Without citing any evidence, the court explained that the defense was unavailable because the hazard was “very great,” the burden to warn was “not great,” and the employer was unaware of asbestos hazards during plaintiffs’ employment before 1964.[1] The employer at issue was a huge industrial concern, with an extensive industrial hygiene department. [read post]