Search for: "Hopkins v. State"
Results 581 - 600
of 805
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Jun 2012, 4:03 pm
The EEOC ruled Macy v. [read post]
Golden State Protections: Required Employee Reimbursements Under § 2802 of the California Labor Code
13 Jun 2012, 3:47 pm
The case of Hopkins v. [read post]
10 Jun 2012, 9:40 pm
Supreme Court’s Mayo Collaborative Services v. [read post]
10 Jun 2012, 8:38 pm
Lawcast 207: Adam Shutkever and Jeremy Hopkins of Riverview Chambers on new legal services delivery Today I am talking to Adam Shutkever, COO of LawVest, which launched Riverview Law in February – Riverview Law is the trading name of LawVest Limited – and Jeremy Hopkins, late of 3 Verulam Buildings where he was a clerk. [read post]
6 Jun 2012, 11:00 am
In its decision, the EEOC substantially relied upon the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Price Waterhouse v. [read post]
25 May 2012, 1:32 pm
She also pointed to the legal context prevailing at the time the ADA was enacted, including the Supreme Court’s decision in Price Waterhouse v Hopkins, wherein the High Court determined that the “because of” language in Title VII meant that the plaintiff had to prove gender played a “motivating part” in the employment decision. [read post]
23 May 2012, 7:09 am
See Hopkins v. [read post]
20 May 2012, 10:02 pm
Hopkins , a U.S. [read post]
10 May 2012, 9:57 am
Macy v. [read post]
10 May 2012, 8:57 am
Macy v. [read post]
8 May 2012, 4:54 pm
” The EEOC’s ruling was grounded on Hopkins, a 2008 case from the D.C. [read post]
7 May 2012, 10:03 pm
Buckles v. [read post]
2 May 2012, 3:19 pm
Hopkins, the well-known 1989 case that allowed a female plaintiff to state a claim of sex discrimination based on her theory that she was denied promotion because of her failure to conform to traditional notions of how a woman should look and act. [read post]
2 May 2012, 9:09 am
” Citing the United States Supreme Court’s landmark holding in Price Waterhouse v. [read post]
1 May 2012, 1:18 pm
Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989). [read post]
1 May 2012, 12:31 pm
In particular, the EEOC cited the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Price Waterhouse v. [read post]
30 Apr 2012, 6:40 pm
HOPKINS. [read post]
27 Apr 2012, 4:52 am
The decision, however, does not depart from prior law, according to the spokesperson: “It is important to note that the decision did not create a new basis of coverage separate from sex discrimination, but reaffirmed what caselaw has said going back to the Supreme Court in Hopkins v. [read post]
25 Apr 2012, 5:34 am
Macy v. [read post]
22 Apr 2012, 2:17 pm
In the courts R (on the application of MD (Afghanistan)) v. [read post]
