Search for: "Murphy v. Cole" Results 81 - 100 of 152
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Jul 2008, 1:32 am
 The court also noted that it is not required to follow the DLSE opinion on the matter, citing Murphy v. [read post]
22 Jul 2008, 6:14 pm
Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1094, 1105, 1113 (Murphy)), the Court of Appeal concluded that employers are not obligated to ensure that meal breaks are taken. [read post]
22 Jul 2008, 2:39 am
  The DLSE was forced to beat a hasty retreat, however, when the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Murphy v. [read post]
10 Jun 2008, 10:00 pm
So far, there is little express authority confirming that the holding in Murphy v. [read post]
7 May 2008, 6:00 am
Judge Velasquez held that waiting time penalties under Labor Code section 203 were recoverable under the UCL as "restitution": In similar fashion to the "additional hour of pay" [in Murphy v. [read post]
20 Mar 2008, 1:30 pm
[Murphy v Kenneth Cole Productions, 40 Cal.4th 1094 (2007)], but in certain cases, a 1 year filing deadline could apply. [read post]
25 Nov 2007, 11:52 am
Gregory ValenzaThe Daily Journal2 November 2007REST BREAK AND MEAL PERIOD CLAIMS AFTER MURPHY V. [read post]
20 Nov 2007, 10:00 am
One of the best published opinions regarding the executive exemption was Murphy v. [read post]
25 Oct 2007, 7:00 am
The California Supreme Court decided earlier this year, in Murphy v. [read post]
4 Oct 2007, 4:15 pm
  The subject is San Francisco Superior Court Judge Anne Bouliane's ruling on the attorney's fees motion in Murphy v. [read post]