Search for: "Finkel v. State"
Results 41 - 60
of 121
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Nov 2020, 4:00 am
Citing Ji Sun Jennifer Kim v Goldberg, Weprin, Finkel, Goldstein, LLP, 120 AD3d 18, the Appellate Division opined that Plaintiff's complaint failed to state a cause of action for hostile work environment under New York City's City Human Rights Law* because it does not allege that Defendants' actions occurred under circumstances that gave rise to an inference of discrimination. [read post]
27 Nov 2020, 4:00 am
Citing Ji Sun Jennifer Kim v Goldberg, Weprin, Finkel, Goldstein, LLP, 120 AD3d 18, the Appellate Division opined that Plaintiff's complaint failed to state a cause of action for hostile work environment under New York City's City Human Rights Law* because it does not allege that Defendants' actions occurred under circumstances that gave rise to an inference of discrimination. [read post]
9 Oct 2023, 3:08 pm
But last week in Brayman v. [read post]
17 Mar 2009, 3:27 am
Newell, et al. v. [read post]
9 Jun 2023, 8:57 am
Drahota * Private Facebook Group’s Conversations Aren’t Defamatory–Finkel v. [read post]
31 May 2013, 11:53 am
Finkel We’ve known since the Supreme Court’s 1982 decision in General Telephone Company of Southwest v. [read post]
29 Sep 2013, 10:00 am
DrahotaPrivate Facebook Group's Conversations Aren't Defamatory--Finkel v. [read post]
29 Dec 2022, 9:09 am
Ball State * Another School Violated a Stud [read post]
11 Oct 2022, 4:01 pm
” Sec. of Labor v. [read post]
30 Nov 2010, 3:55 am
Finkel [445 U.S. 507]. [read post]
6 Aug 2022, 9:49 am
Drahota * Private Facebook Group’s Conversations Aren’t Defamatory–Finkel v. [read post]
21 Dec 2009, 9:18 am
Because this case is in state court, I don't have easy access to the state court opinion to see how the judge got it wrong. [read post]
24 Jun 2012, 11:11 am
Drahota * Private Facebook Group's Conversations Aren't Defamatory--Finkel v. [read post]
5 Jul 2013, 1:15 pm
DrahotaPrivate Facebook Group's Conversations Aren't Defamatory--Finkel v. [read post]
21 Jun 2010, 3:05 am
Among the significant cases addressing this issue are Elrod v Burns, 427 US 347; Branti v Finkel, 445 US 507 and Rutan v Republican Party of Illinois, 497 US 62.* Although the decision does not address Miller’s probationary obligation, "probationary employees" in fact hold permanent appointments and may enjoy limited tenure rights. [read post]
11 Sep 2015, 2:01 am
Redington, 442 U.S. 560, 568-71 (1979); Finkel v. [read post]
8 Jan 2011, 1:48 pm
Kathleen Romano v. [read post]
24 Jun 2022, 9:03 pm
., Local 100, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v City of Mount Vernon 2022 NY Slip Op 04023 Decided on June 22, 2022 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. [read post]
24 Jun 2022, 9:03 pm
., Local 100, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v City of Mount Vernon 2022 NY Slip Op 04023 Decided on June 22, 2022 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. [read post]
13 Aug 2010, 2:23 pm
The case of Finkel v. [read post]