Search for: "Johns v Johns" Results 5961 - 5980 of 33,723
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Jun 2012, 2:00 pm by John Elwood
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relisted and held cases, among other things. [read post]
29 Jan 2007, 3:02 am
As New York Civil Law previously posted, the New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal in Reynolds v. [read post]
17 Jan 2011, 3:10 am by John L. Welch
The CAFC heard oral argument on Friday, January 14th, in Citigroup's appeal from the TTAB's decision in Citigroup Inc. v. [read post]
27 Mar 2019, 11:19 am by John Elwood
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relists. [read post]
4 Oct 2007, 3:34 pm
In a complaint entitled “Terrorizing & Spying On Me” the JLR is requesting the court to “keep all Defendant’s from taking top secret Jonathan Lee Riches © files. [read post]
23 Apr 2010, 7:34 am by Erin Miller
When I completed my clerkship with Justice John Paul Stevens in July 1995, I knew that fortune had smiled on me twice over. [read post]
Unsatisfactory rating voided because employee's "performance review," failed to comply with the employer's own procedures and thus undermined the integrity of the process Joyce v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 03433, Appellate Division, First Department The Appellate Division annulled the determination of respondent New York City Department of Education [DOE] sustaining the "unsatisfactory" rating for the 2010-2011 academic year give to John Joyce, a tenured teacher. The court said that the record demonstrates "deficiencies in the performance review process" that resulted in Mr. Joyce being given an unsatisfactory rating for the 2010-2011 academic year. Citing Matter of Gumbs v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 125 AD3d 484, and Matter of Richards v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 117 AD3d 605, the Appellate Division noted that these deficiencies "were not merely technical, but undermined the integrity and fairness of the process." Mr. Joyce had received a satisfactory rating for the previous academic year and, in contravention of its own procedures, DOE failed to place him on notice that he was in danger of receiving an unsatisfactory rating for the 2010-2011 academic year until after April 28, 2011. Although DOE's procedures required that tenured teachers in danger of receiving an unsatisfactory rating have "formal observations including a pre-observation and post-observation conference by the principal ... as part of a prescriptive plan to improve their teaching," Mr. Joyce received only one formal observation which took place one week before the end of the academic year and was not part of a prescriptive plan to improve his performance as a teacher. The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_03433.htm
30 May 2018, 4:37 am by Public Employment Law Press
Citing Matter of Gumbs v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. [read post]