Search for: "Nassar v. Nassar"
Results 61 - 80
of 189
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Jan 2015, 7:23 am
Cassotto v. [read post]
14 Dec 2014, 8:33 am
Nassar (2013), and Burrage v. [read post]
10 Dec 2014, 5:09 am
Nassar, the Supreme Court broke its string of plaintiff victories... [read post]
9 Dec 2014, 7:54 am
Her complaint regarding another employee touching her on three different occasions, made seven months before, was too far removed, particularly in light of the fact that she was praised and given a salary increase in the intervening months, the court reasoned (Musolf v. [read post]
7 Oct 2014, 3:14 pm
Nassar, 133 S. [read post]
20 Aug 2014, 4:45 am
Ctr. v. [read post]
15 Jul 2014, 11:13 pm
Ctr. v. [read post]
14 Jul 2014, 10:40 am
Nassar, 133 S. [read post]
27 Jun 2014, 7:43 am
Although the error was plain, the employer could not show that it affected its substantial rights because the jury found that the employee had proven that his termination was “because of” his protected activity, which satisfied Nassar (EEOC v AC Widenhouse, Inc, June 24, 2014, Duncan, A). [read post]
7 Jun 2014, 6:21 am
The Supreme Court reached a decision in Bond v. [read post]
24 Apr 2014, 5:26 pm
Nassar, 133 S.Ct. 2517, 2530 (2013). [read post]
21 Mar 2014, 5:33 am
Ball and UT Southwestern Medical Center v. [read post]
14 Feb 2014, 7:43 am
There's an interesting post from the Whistleblower Law Blog, Burrage v. [read post]
30 Jan 2014, 7:03 am
The employer’s motion for summary judgment was denied in part and granted in part (Norman v Bright Horizons Family Solutions, LLC, January 23, 2014, Kovachevich, E). [read post]
30 Jan 2014, 6:35 am
Thus, summary judgment was denied on these claims (Taylor v Rite Aid Corp, January 24, 2014, Quarles,W. [read post]
18 Dec 2013, 7:34 am
The Supreme Court recently held in Univ of Tex SW Med Ctr v Nassar, that “Title VII retaliation claims must be proved according to traditional principles of but-for causation,” which “requires proof that the unlawful retaliation would not have occurred in the absence of the alleged wrongful action or actions of the employer. [read post]
20 Nov 2013, 8:49 am
Specifically, the court found that both under the old motivating factor test and Nassar’s heighted but-for causation standard, the employee had evidence from which a jury could conclude that his father’s participation in the state agency’s investigation was the but-for cause of the adverse employment actions he suffered (Puglisi v Town of Hempstead Sanitary District Number 2, November 15, 2013, Chen, P). [read post]
5 Nov 2013, 5:31 am
FBL and UTSMC v. [read post]
5 Nov 2013, 5:31 am
FBL and UTSMC v. [read post]
21 Oct 2013, 12:47 pm
The ruling of University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. [read post]
