Search for: "WAL MART STORES INC" Results 781 - 800 of 1,964
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Aug 2013, 1:33 pm by Greg Mersol
Posted by Greg MersolA Virginia District Court has denied conditional certification of a class of chauffeurs in claims for unpaid overtime and has also recognized the application of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
8 Aug 2013, 8:15 am by Jon Gelman
Today's post was shared by US Dept. of Labor and comes from www.dol.gov Wal-Mart signs corporate-wide settlement with US Labor Department Agreement resolves OSHA citations at Rochester, N.Y., store following 2011 inspections Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., has entered into a corporate-wide settlement agreement with the U.S. [read post]
8 Aug 2013, 8:12 am by Joy Waltemath
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., has entered into a corporate-wide settlement agreement with the U.S. [read post]
22 Jul 2013, 4:28 pm by rhall@initiativelegal.com
Additionally, the decision, known as “Whirlpool II”, represents some pushback with respect to another relatively recent Supreme Court decision thought to spell trouble for the future of class actions, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
15 Jul 2013, 4:00 am by Kerri Stone
Kerri Stone The Hazards of Dukes: The Substantive Consequences of a Procedural Decision, by Natalie Bucciarelli Pedersen—aside from having quite possibly the best title of any article, ever—is an important and informative reminder that one of the most newsworthy and talked about cases of the past decade, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
11 Jul 2013, 6:20 pm by Joy Waltemath
The Southern District of Alabama found  (Denham v Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, March 26, 2013) that any employee’s use of the n-word was “patently offensive,” but an “isolated utterance on a single occasion,” not directed at anyone in the workplace, was a stray remark that failed to meet the legal threshold for a cognizable Title VII claim. [read post]
8 Jul 2013, 3:04 am by John L. Welch
Opposer sells to Safeway, Wal-Mart, and Costco; applicant's witness testified that  it intends to sell its water in supermarkets.The fact that the goods will be sold in the same large store does not necessarily support a Section 2(d) claim, but here there was testimony that both water and wine are sold at wineries, and further Mr. [read post]