Search for: "Starbucks"
Results 921 - 940
of 4,445
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Aug 2018, 12:00 am
She stopped doing yoga, meeting friends at Starbucks or retreating into the world of reading science fiction. [read post]
9 Aug 2018, 2:37 pm
In case you missed the in-depth coverage of Employment Law Daily for July, here’s a recap of some key developments in the L&E community. [read post]
7 Aug 2018, 7:05 am
Start with Clients With the recession, long before we started asking Siri where the nearest Starbucks was, the client realized that the power in their relationship with their outside counsel was shifting in their favor. [read post]
6 Aug 2018, 5:57 am
California Court's Decision Regarding Wage Law Could Revive Starbucks Lawsuit The post California Court’s Decision Regarding Wage Law Could Revive Starbucks Lawsuit appeared first on Legal Reader. [read post]
6 Aug 2018, 3:00 am
There were Starbucks everywhere, a sign that you’ve definitely made it to a gentrified area. [read post]
6 Aug 2018, 3:00 am
There were Starbucks everywhere, a sign that you’ve definitely made it to a gentrified area. [read post]
5 Aug 2018, 10:05 pm
Most Indispensable App Starbucks Mobile App with its order ahead feature saves me between five and ten minutes every time I visit Starbucks. [read post]
5 Aug 2018, 3:08 pm
Krista Cox: The Minority Gender Patent Gap (Source: Above the Law) Jeff McDowell: How Your Employees Can – And Must – Protect Intellectual Property (The Globe and Mail) Stephen Vines: As Kit Kat, Starbucks and Posh Spice Rulings Show, Intellectual Property is Big but Bittersweet Business (Source: South Morning China Post) Shekh Abdullah-Al-Musa Ahmed: Intellectual Property and Principles of IPR in Bangladesh (Source: SSRN) New Job Postings on Patently-O: Nelson Mullins Riley… [read post]
1 Aug 2018, 8:41 am
Starbucks Corp., 2018 WL 3582702 (Cal. [read post]
31 Jul 2018, 4:00 am
Starbucks Corp., ___ Cal.5th ___ (July 26, 2018). [read post]
30 Jul 2018, 3:32 pm
Starbucks Corporation, in which it considered the applicability of the de minimis doctrine to claims for unpaid wages under the California Labor Code. [read post]
30 Jul 2018, 3:32 pm
Starbucks Corporation, in which it considered the applicability of the de minimis doctrine to claims for unpaid wages under the California Labor Code. [read post]
30 Jul 2018, 2:38 pm
This means Troester’s suit against Starbucks may well be revived. [read post]
30 Jul 2018, 1:32 pm
All told, Troester claimed that Starbucks owed him about $100 in unpaid time, accumulated over 17 months of employment. [read post]
30 Jul 2018, 12:48 pm
Starbucks Corporation (S234969) on whether California wage and hour law recognizes the de minimis doctrine established by the United States Supreme Court in Anderson v. [read post]
30 Jul 2018, 12:09 pm
Starbucks Corporation, ostensibly clarifying the application of the widely adopted de minimis doctrine to California’s wage-hour laws. [read post]
27 Jul 2018, 7:20 pm
Starbucks Corp., No. [read post]
27 Jul 2018, 1:24 pm
Troester worked for Starbucks as a shift supervisor. [read post]
27 Jul 2018, 1:24 pm
Troester worked for Starbucks as a shift supervisor. [read post]
26 Jul 2018, 7:09 pm
And Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has an article headlined “In Starbucks case, California court says workers owed for off-the-clock time. [read post]
