Search for: "Severance v. Ford Motor Co." Results 101 - 120 of 261
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Jan 2015, 1:20 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
The Ford Motor Company, founded in mid-June 1903, rolled out its first car--a Model A--that July and continued to grow steadily over the next several years. link: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/henry-ford-leaves-edison-to-start-automobile-company Thus, from the first Model A in July 1903 to the first law suit in October 1903, one had only about three months. [read post]
26 Nov 2014, 3:26 pm by John Hochfelder
Ford Motor Co. (2d Dept. 2012)  the liability finding against it was again upheld; however, the appellate court reversed and dismissed the trial judge’s zone of danger awards declaring that the issue had not been submitted to the jury. [read post]
7 Nov 2014, 5:52 am
American Honda Motor Co., 505 So.2d 358, 361 (Ala. 1987) (cited in Deere). [read post]
20 Jun 2014, 10:12 am by Don Cruse
Proving fraud by circumstantial evidence FORD MOTOR COMPANY v. [read post]
21 May 2014, 10:44 am by Richard S. Zackin
Ford Motor Co., a case in which the agency brought suit on behalf of a Ford employee who alleged she was terminated in retaliation for filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. [read post]
2 May 2014, 2:59 pm by Cicely Wilson
Ford Motor Co., US 6th Cir. (4/22/14)Labor & Employment LawIn 2003 Harris was hired as a resale buyer at Ford. [read post]
29 Apr 2014, 9:06 pm by Jason Shinn
What this means for Employers Employers and HR professionals should read the entire EEOC v Ford Motor Co. opinion. [read post]
29 Apr 2014, 8:21 am by Jason Shinn
What this means for Employers Employers and HR professionals should read the entire EEOC v Ford Motor Co. opinion. [read post]
24 Apr 2014, 6:17 am by Joy Waltemath
Thus, it reversed summary judgment in Ford’s favor on the EEOC’s failure-to-accommodate and retaliation claims (EEOC v Ford Motor Co, April 22, 2014, Moore, K). [read post]
17 Mar 2014, 5:28 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Ford Motor Co., 849 F.2d 460 (9th Cir. 1988), was about the copyrightability of a performer’s voice—not her performance. [read post]