Search for: "Supervisors v. United States"
Results 861 - 880
of 1,709
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Jun 2014, 9:33 am
In Garcetti v. [read post]
24 Jun 2014, 6:22 am
Last year, in United States v. [read post]
19 Jun 2014, 8:26 am
Branti v. [read post]
19 Jun 2014, 4:00 am
The contract provision at issue stated: The District "shall assume the full cost of health insurance coverage and major medical . . . for each employee in the negotiating unit covered by this Agreement lawfully retiring in the future. [read post]
18 Jun 2014, 6:42 am
After the counselor reported the picture to a unit manager and HR, an investigation ensued. [read post]
17 Jun 2014, 10:40 am
MacLean v. [read post]
17 Jun 2014, 7:15 am
United States v. [read post]
2 Jun 2014, 7:26 am
See United States v. [read post]
30 May 2014, 9:20 am
” Last fall the Court invited the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States. [read post]
28 May 2014, 6:19 am
All three are white males, were from the official’s chain of command, and had experience in the travel unit. [read post]
25 May 2014, 7:10 am
North Carolina The United States Supreme Court is also considering the case of Brewington v. [read post]
21 May 2014, 1:40 pm
Accordingly, in McQuillan v. [read post]
21 May 2014, 10:44 am
The EEOC is heralding a recent decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Equal Opportunity Employment Commission v. [read post]
9 May 2014, 11:24 am
United States and Maxwell v. [read post]
6 May 2014, 11:50 am
It is an oddly consoling aspect of the United States Supreme Court that we basically get the Justices we deserve. [read post]
2 May 2014, 2:59 pm
Agency v. [read post]
30 Apr 2014, 5:00 am
Although these witnesses did not quantify the exact cost of the many hours of labor expended, the United States introduced Exhibit 6 to make such a quantification. [read post]
24 Apr 2014, 10:26 am
Lane is not the only one to argue that the Eleventh Circuit’s categorical exclusion of First Amendment protection for subpoenaed testimony is incorrect: the Solicitor General, representing the United States as an amicus, agrees with him. [read post]
23 Apr 2014, 12:35 pm
United States v. [read post]
20 Apr 2014, 4:55 pm
The appeals court pointed out that the DOL’s case would depend on the information received from 150 other state employees who had consented to the disclosure of their identities, and that the state employer already had this information in its possession (Perez v United States District Court, Tacoma, April 18, 2014, Trott, S). [read post]
