Search for: "Wells v. Supervisors"
Results 81 - 100
of 3,118
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Feb 2012, 9:26 am
The Third Circuit in Haybarger v. [read post]
14 Oct 2009, 12:20 am
Nunez v. [read post]
12 Mar 2012, 3:42 am
The decisions is Holland v. [read post]
13 Feb 2015, 9:21 am
Defendant in the Betts case insists franchisees set wage and hour rates as well as local working conditions. [read post]
5 Oct 2017, 4:25 am
Well, it depends. [read post]
28 Feb 2011, 10:54 am
The plaintiff in this case brought a claim against his employer for intentional infliction of emotional distress, arguing his supervisor "fraudulently" criticized his job performance. [read post]
25 Jul 2016, 7:57 am
Thus, said the court in affirming the grant of summary judgment against his claim, it was simply not possible for his supervisor to use the decisionmaker as a “dupe” in a deliberate scheme to trigger a discriminatory employment action (Cherry v. [read post]
3 Mar 2010, 11:05 am
In Narodetsky v. [read post]
24 Mar 2011, 6:24 am
Today, we discuss the brand new Supreme Court opinion of Kasten v. [read post]
9 Jan 2020, 4:56 pm
Well, that's not really true. [read post]
10 Oct 2018, 7:45 am
Timing was also suspect, said the court (Vaughan v. [read post]
27 Sep 2010, 12:13 pm
In EEOC v. [read post]
26 Apr 2016, 9:42 pm
SCOTUS on Tuesday decided Heffernan v. [read post]
10 Feb 2021, 4:10 am
In the case, the music director of a Catholic church alleged that his supervisor harassed an humiliated him about his sexual orientation, as well as his weight and his medical issues. [read post]
6 Sep 2013, 5:11 am
Garges v. [read post]
7 Jul 2014, 2:28 pm
Kenney v. [read post]
27 Mar 2015, 6:53 am
Accordingly, the supervisor was entitled to qualified immunity on this interference claim as well. [read post]
29 Sep 2012, 7:10 am
The core issue here is whether the supervisor liability rule, as established in Burlington Industries, Inc. v. [read post]
5 Sep 2023, 2:00 am
Inc. v. [read post]
11 Jul 2018, 7:09 am
Although the district court refused to award any attorneys’ fees to the first officer, whose retaliation claim against his supervisor was the only claim to get to a jury, the appeals court now revived two claims, and if either a trial or a settlement resulted in more than nominal damages, the attorneys’ fee analysis would need to be revisited as well (Robinson v. [read post]
