Search for: "State v. CERTIFIED SERVICES, INC." Results 741 - 760 of 1,642
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Sep 2015, 2:10 pm by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer
Oil and gas service giant Halliburton, has agreed to pay $18,293,557 to 1,016 employees nationwide to settle charges by the U.S. [read post]
AB 883 would add section 432.6 to the Labor Code to prohibit a state or local agency from discriminating against current or former public employees in publishing job advertisements, in establishing qualifications for job eligibility, and in making adverse employment decisions. [read post]
15 Sep 2015, 4:42 am by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer
Founder and Executive Director of the Coalition for Responsible Healthcare Policy and its PROJECT COPE: the Coalition on Patient Empowerment and a Fellow in the American Bar Foundation and State Bar of Texas, Ms. [read post]
2 Sep 2015, 12:44 pm by Greg Mersol
Much is being reported in the media about the decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California certifying a class of drivers for the Uber ride service who contended that they were employees, not independent contractors. [read post]
21 Aug 2015, 6:22 am by Joy Waltemath
However, most district courts in the circuit have evaluated a proposed settlement under a standard established by the Eleventh Circuit in Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
18 Aug 2015, 7:52 pm by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer
A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, past Chair and current Welfare Benefit Committee Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, former Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group,  an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative and Board Certified in Labor… [read post]
17 Aug 2015, 12:32 pm by Richard S. Zackin
Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc., the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently adopted the “primary beneficiary” test for determining whether individuals performing services for no compensation have been properly classified as “unpaid interns” or are, in fact, “employees” who have been improperly denied wages mandated by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). [read post]