Search for: "United Parcel Services"
Results 521 - 540
of 1,058
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Nov 2014, 9:59 am
Peggy Young only has to look at her younger daughter to be reminded how long she has fought United Parcel Service over its treatment of pregnant employees, and why. [read post]
26 Nov 2014, 5:16 am
United Parcel Service, in which the Court will consider whether and to what extent the Pregnancy Discrimination Act requires employers to provide their pregnant employees with the same accommodations that it provides to employees who are not pregnant. [read post]
23 Nov 2014, 12:00 am
United Parcel Service, in its October 2014 term, a case that hinges on this very paradox within the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. [read post]
19 Nov 2014, 10:24 am
United Parcel Service, which will look at whether pregnant employees are entitled to accommodations with work restrictions if similar accommodations are being offered to non-pregnant employees. [read post]
16 Nov 2014, 8:00 am
Legal Maxims: The More Human Puzzles Change, the More They Remain the Same! [read post]
13 Nov 2014, 8:43 am
The solicitation instructed that proposals deemed untimely would not be considered and that “[d]elays caused by commercial means such as airlines, express carriers such as Federal Express, United Parcel Service, etc or municipal difficulties such as black-outs, are not excusable. [read post]
11 Nov 2014, 7:27 pm
Rev. 609 (1998) READ 620-636 Supreme Court of the United StatesRoy ROMER, Governor of Colorado, et al., Petitioners,v.Richard G. [read post]
10 Nov 2014, 10:09 am
The court noted that, in enacting the VPPA, “Congress contemplated customer service as part and parcel of the ordinary rental experience. [read post]
7 Nov 2014, 10:06 am
United Parcel Service, Inc. [read post]
5 Nov 2014, 7:13 am
United Parcel Service, Inc., No. 12-1226, which poses whether the Pregnancy Discrimination Act requires an employer to accommodate a pregnant woman with work restrictions related to pregnancy in the same manner as it accommodates a non-pregnant employee with the same restrictions, but not related to pregnancy. [read post]
5 Nov 2014, 7:13 am
United Parcel Service, Inc., No. 12-1226, which poses whether the Pregnancy Discrimination Act requires an employer to accommodate a pregnant woman with work restrictions related to pregnancy in the same manner as it accommodates a non-pregnant employee with the same restrictions, but not related to pregnancy. [read post]
5 Nov 2014, 4:33 am
United Parcel Service, Inc., No. 12-1226, which poses whether the Pregnancy Discrimination Act requires an employer to accommodate a pregnant woman with work restrictions related to pregnancy in the same manner as it accommodates a non-pregnant employee with the same restrictions, but not related to pregnancy. [read post]
30 Oct 2014, 6:52 am
She The People, WaPo, With Supreme Court Case Pending, UPS Reverses Policy on Pregnant Workers This week United Parcel Service sent a memo to employees announcing a change in policy for pregnant workers: starting January 1, the company will offer... [read post]
29 Oct 2014, 10:27 am
Courts are still making their way out of the work-unit (danwei) model. [read post]
29 Oct 2014, 6:55 am
United Parcel Service, Inc. [read post]
28 Oct 2014, 12:36 pm
On December 3, the court will hear the case of Peggy Young, a United Parcel Service (UPS) package driver who was forced off the job while she was pregnant, when she requested a temporary light-duty position. [read post]
18 Oct 2014, 11:41 am
He first worked for Roadway Package System, a national delivery company whose founders included former United Parcel Service (UPS) managers, and continued driving trucks when (FDX) bought RPS in 1998. [read post]
6 Oct 2014, 9:41 am
City decided to not use the parcel to connect two roads. [read post]
3 Oct 2014, 12:58 pm
United Parcel Service, Inc., the Justices are asked to determine the extent to which employers must accommodate pregnant employees in light of accommodations extended to other workers. [read post]
24 Sep 2014, 1:50 pm
United Parcel Service, 707 F.3d 437 (4th Cir. 2013). [read post]
