Search for: "May v. Dept. of Human Resources"
Results 61 - 80
of 132
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Oct 2016, 10:02 pm
Karr v. [read post]
14 Oct 2016, 7:00 am
The employee, a human resource specialist, was terminated after his employer discovered that he used his computer terminal to frequently access pornographic websites during working hours.Fraser v Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.USDC, 135 F. [read post]
3 Oct 2016, 7:30 am
The employee, a human resource specialist, was dismissed from his position after his employer discovered that he used his computer terminal to frequently access pornographic websites during working hours. [read post]
15 Aug 2016, 4:31 pm
The question and results may not live up to the rigors of a statistical analysis like a WCRI Study, but I broke the responses into 7 different category answers. [read post]
12 Aug 2016, 8:25 am
Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, Ohio Div. of Wildlife, 2015-Ohio-3731 (“[i]n reviewing a statute, a court cannot pick out one sentence and disassociate it from the context, but must look to the four corners of the enactment to determine the intent of the enacting body. [read post]
3 Aug 2016, 4:00 am
Seeking documents that the custodian of the records contends may be denied pursuant to one or more Freedom of Information Law “exemptions from disclosure”Rose v Albany County Dist. [read post]
15 Mar 2016, 2:14 pm
In the case of Doherty v. [read post]
15 Mar 2016, 2:14 pm
In the case of Doherty v. [read post]
20 Jul 2015, 9:07 am
The Final RegulationsThis past Tuesday the government published in the Federal Register a series of final rules issued a few days earlier by the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and Treasury. [read post]
30 Jun 2015, 7:26 am
In Graham Court Owner’s Corp v. v. [read post]
26 May 2015, 7:42 am
The FDA’s online pharmacogenomics resources offer links to scads of other stuff. [read post]
17 Apr 2015, 1:53 pm
(See People v. [read post]
21 Jan 2015, 6:48 pm
Arkansas Dept. of Human Services v. [read post]
20 Jan 2015, 9:00 pm
Hobby Lobby), explains how the RFRA formula relates to its prior free exercise doctrine as follows: RFRA was enacted three years after our decision in Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. [read post]
20 Jan 2015, 9:00 pm
Hobby Lobby), explains how the RFRA formula relates to its prior free exercise doctrine as follows: RFRA was enacted three years after our decision in Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. [read post]
20 Jan 2015, 2:26 pm
RFRA was enacted three years after our decision in Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. [read post]
16 Nov 2014, 8:00 am
Moore v. [read post]
9 Nov 2014, 6:46 pm
See Zerbst v. [read post]
26 Oct 2014, 8:23 pm
Consideration of Hamdi v. [read post]
2 Jul 2014, 7:19 am
HHS argued that the RFRA was intended to restore the state of the law as it existed before Employment Division, Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990). [read post]
