Search for: "Strauss v. Cir" Results 41 - 60 of 89
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Dec 2007, 9:33 pm
”This, the Ninth Circuit found, was based on a misreading of Levi Strauss & Co. v. [read post]
17 Apr 2011, 4:00 am by Ted Folkman
” He looked to the seven-factor test in Strauss v. [read post]
15 Jul 2013, 12:43 pm by Ron Coleman
” In re Strauss,“> 2006 WL 2583645, at *2 (citing Kawaauhau v. [read post]
13 Dec 2010, 3:20 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
In re County of Erie, 546 F.3d 222, 228 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Sedco Int'l S.A. v. [read post]
30 Jan 2008, 6:28 am
McDonough, 466 F.3d 970, 979 (11th Cir. 2006) (Rutherford II) (Wilson, J., dissenting); see also Hill v. [read post]
3 Jun 2022, 10:58 am by Public Employment Law Press
Here, the two discrete acts alleged by the plaintiff were insufficient to create a hostile work environment (see Murphy v Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 155 AD3d 637, 639-640; Holtz v Rockefeller & Co., 258 F3d 62, 75 [2d Cir]). [read post]
3 Jun 2022, 10:58 am by Public Employment Law Press
Here, the two discrete acts alleged by the plaintiff were insufficient to create a hostile work environment (see Murphy v Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 155 AD3d 637, 639-640; Holtz v Rockefeller & Co., 258 F3d 62, 75 [2d Cir]). [read post]
3 Jun 2022, 10:58 am by Public Employment Law Press
Here, the two discrete acts alleged by the plaintiff were insufficient to create a hostile work environment (see Murphy v Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 155 AD3d 637, 639-640; Holtz v Rockefeller & Co., 258 F3d 62, 75 [2d Cir]). [read post]
3 Jun 2022, 10:58 am by Public Employment Law Press
Here, the two discrete acts alleged by the plaintiff were insufficient to create a hostile work environment (see Murphy v Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 155 AD3d 637, 639-640; Holtz v Rockefeller & Co., 258 F3d 62, 75 [2d Cir]). [read post]