Search for: "Service Employees v. Foundation" Results 41 - 60 of 1,173
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Jul 2013, 4:05 am
" ** See also Alexis v City of Niagara Falls posted on the Internet at:  http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2013/05/an-employees-satisfying-employers.html The decision in this action is posted on the Internet at: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_04148.htm [read post]
1 Nov 2011, 10:15 am by Jeff Neuburger
In its Amicus Brief filed urging the Ninth Circuit to rehear the Nosal case en banc, the Electronic Frontier Foundation argued that the panel opinion in Nosal would criminalize routine, mundane acts committed by Internet users that were deemed to violate provisions in broadly written Internet Terms of Service. [read post]
9 Sep 2021, 6:40 pm by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer
Stamer has extensive experience advising, representing, defending, and training domestic and international public and private business, charitable, community and governmental organizations and their leaders, employers, employee benefit plans, their fiduciaries and service providers, insurers, and others has published and spoken extensively on these concerns. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 8:11 am by Walter Olson
Tweet Tags: First Amendment, labor unions, Supreme CourtGuest post, “Harris v. [read post]
30 Apr 2018, 7:41 am by Rebecca Tushnet
‘Alzheimer’s Foundation of America’ is a registered service mark of our organization. [read post]
20 May 2022, 11:43 pm by Frank Cranmer
 As we noted in an earlier post, however, in Dean Martyn Percy v The Dean & Chapter of the Cathedral Church of Christ in Oxford of the Foundation of King Henry VIII [2020] UKET 3310878/2019, Employment Judge Andrew Clarke QC concluded at a preliminary hearing that Dean Percy was an employee for the purposes of s. 83(2)(a) of the Equality Act 2010, though not an employee of the Crown. [read post]
14 Jul 2011, 9:54 am by Steven G. Pearl
Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 114, the Court found that the agreement was procedurally unconscionable as a contract of adhesion, implemented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. [read post]