Search for: "Test Plaintiff"
Results 8461 - 8480
of 21,967
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Nov 2016, 1:47 pm
The court reasoned that by the DOL significantly increasing the minimum salary level, it essentially created “a de facto salary-only test,” which Congress did not intend. [read post]
28 Nov 2016, 11:12 am
LabMD was a medical testing company that specialized in cancer detection. [read post]
28 Nov 2016, 11:12 am
LabMD was a medical testing company that specialized in cancer detection. [read post]
28 Nov 2016, 6:02 am
” Plaintiff confused correlation with causation. [read post]
26 Nov 2016, 7:40 am
Despite the ubiquity of memes, the legality of using a random stranger’s photo in a humorous way has not been tested very often. [read post]
25 Nov 2016, 12:10 pm
One plaintiff called the incident, which occurred five years ago, “One of the hardest times of my life. [read post]
25 Nov 2016, 12:10 pm
One plaintiff called the incident, which occurred five years ago, “One of the hardest times of my life. [read post]
25 Nov 2016, 7:01 am
In October, the state plaintiffs moved for an emergency preliminary injunction during the pendency of the litigation. [read post]
25 Nov 2016, 6:00 am
In doing so, the judge looked at the NFU test factors: “(1) Plaintiff’s product or service [i.e., singing] is not readily identifiable without the use of the trademark; (2) Defendants’ used only so much of the mark as it is reasonably necessary to identify the plaintiff’s product or service, and (3) the user of the mark does nothing that would, in conjunction with the mark, suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner. [read post]
24 Nov 2016, 9:59 pm
- By Michael Bartlett Even if the theory cannot meet the Daubert test for the admissibility of scientific evidence, it can be difficult to challenge. [read post]
23 Nov 2016, 4:24 pm
On October 12, 2016, the State Plaintiffs filed an Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Request for Oral Argument and Expedited Consideration. [read post]
23 Nov 2016, 4:18 pm
The court sided with the state plaintiffs. [read post]
23 Nov 2016, 2:31 pm
However, the Court agreed with the plaintiffs in finding that the Final Rule’s new salary threshold conflicts with the statutory text of the FLSA because it gives too much weight to the salary component of the exemption, i.e. doubling the salary threshold in effect made that test “supplant” the statutorily-mandated “duties test. [read post]
23 Nov 2016, 1:32 pm
The state-plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for a preliminary injunction. [read post]
23 Nov 2016, 10:43 am
This is likely to result in irreparable harm to the state plaintiffs. [read post]
23 Nov 2016, 9:51 am
The court ruled that the state plaintiffs have established a prima facie case that the Department’s salary level under the Final Rule and the automatic updating mechanism are without statutory authority. [read post]
23 Nov 2016, 9:51 am
The court ruled that the state plaintiffs have established a prima facie case that the Department’s salary level under the Final Rule and the automatic updating mechanism are without statutory authority. [read post]
23 Nov 2016, 9:13 am
While not issuing a final ruling, the court determined that the plaintiff states have shown a likelihood of success on the merits justifying the preliminary injunction. [read post]
23 Nov 2016, 8:18 am
Most importantly for employers, nothing changes regarding the duties tests that must be satisfied for the white collar exemptions to the FLSA. [read post]
23 Nov 2016, 8:06 am
The state plaintiffs had argued that the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. [read post]
