Search for: "United States v. Board of Educ. of City of Union City"
Results 41 - 60
of 257
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Jul 2019, 4:00 am
Matter of Burke v Bowen, 40 NY2d 264, 266-267 [1976]; cf. [read post]
20 Jan 2016, 3:47 am
Detroit Board of Ed., be compelled to pay agency fees, justified as a fee for the service of negotiating a contract on behalf of non-union members of the collective bargaining unit. [read post]
1 Aug 2019, 4:00 am
Citing Matter of United Fedn. of Teachers, Local 2, AFT, AFL-CIO v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 1 NY3d 72, the court said that "[T]he public policy exception to an arbitrator's power to resolve disputes is extremely narrow" and the Court of Appeals has promulgated "a two-prong test for determining whether an arbitration award violates public policy. [read post]
20 Feb 2009, 4:30 am
A policy decision by the employer is not subject to "pre-negotiations;" the impact of that decision on unit members is negotiableMatter of County of Erie & Erie County Sheriff v State of New York Pub. [read post]
24 Aug 2012, 12:18 pm
City of South Salt Lake City, 140 P. 3d 1235, 1239 (2006) citing West v Thomson Newspapers 872 P.2d 999, 1004 (Utah 1994). [read post]
2 Dec 2009, 7:47 pm
The United States Supreme Court heard oral argument today in Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. [read post]
19 Nov 2010, 7:17 am
"Another complication: In deciding National League of Cities v Usery, 426 U.S. 833, the U.S. [read post]
25 Jun 2024, 12:33 pm
Source: American Civil Liberties Union That’s why the ACLU, along with Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Education Law Center, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case supporting the attorney general. [read post]
11 Nov 2014, 7:27 pm
For example, the cities of Aspen and Boulder and the city and County of Denver each had enacted ordinances which banned discrimination in many transactions and activities, including housing, employment, education, public accommodations, and health and welfare services. [read post]
8 Apr 2011, 3:59 am
Public policy does not nullify the choice she made (cf., Matter of Abramovich v Board of Educ., 46 NY2d 450, cert denied 444 US 845). [read post]
15 Jun 2023, 6:30 am
United States (1992) and Printz v. [read post]
26 Mar 2025, 6:00 am
That was not proper.The proper path is set forth in Ambach (Matter of Board of Educ., Commack Union Free School Dist. v Ambach, 70 NY2d 501, 508 [1987]). [read post]
26 Mar 2025, 6:00 am
That was not proper.The proper path is set forth in Ambach (Matter of Board of Educ., Commack Union Free School Dist. v Ambach, 70 NY2d 501, 508 [1987]). [read post]
8 Jul 2024, 5:01 am
From Lax v. [read post]
29 May 2025, 6:00 am
Citing Armstrong v Town of Tonawanda, 214 AD3d 1304, and Meyer v City of Long Beach, 165 AD3d 649, the Appellate Division opined that plaintiffs, who were retirees and not teachers as defined in the CBA, could not have initiated a "contract grievance" before commencing the instant action.The Appellate Division's decision is set out below:Chappaqua Congress of Teachers v Board of Educ. of the Chappaqua Cent. [read post]
29 May 2025, 6:00 am
Citing Armstrong v Town of Tonawanda, 214 AD3d 1304, and Meyer v City of Long Beach, 165 AD3d 649, the Appellate Division opined that plaintiffs, who were retirees and not teachers as defined in the CBA, could not have initiated a "contract grievance" before commencing the instant action.The Appellate Division's decision is set out below:Chappaqua Congress of Teachers v Board of Educ. of the Chappaqua Cent. [read post]
4 Nov 2015, 11:31 am
Board of Education of Township High School District 205, 391 U.S. 563 (1968), and United States v. [read post]
11 Aug 2010, 9:19 pm
But by treating "houses of worship" as the units from which to sample, a disproportionately heavy representation of Christians is the inev [read post]
9 May 2020, 2:20 am
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of… [read post]
9 May 2020, 2:20 am
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of… [read post]
