Search for: "State v. Macy"
Results 101 - 120
of 193
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Dec 2013, 9:46 am
When Macy initially filed her complaint with the EEOC, it rejected her claim and stated that anti-transgender discrimination was not covered by Title VII. [read post]
19 Nov 2013, 12:16 pm
Macy’s Inc. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 1119, the plaintiff could pursue individual PAGA claims in arbitration. [read post]
7 Nov 2013, 11:46 am
In last year’s much publicized Macy v Holder decision, the EEOC — following earlier court precedents which held that Title VII’s prohibition against discrimination based on “sex” extends to claims for sex stereotyping, as well any other claim asserting that gender was taken into account — ruled that transgender workers are protected under Title VII. [read post]
1 Nov 2013, 1:21 pm
Macy’s, Inc. [read post]
8 Oct 2013, 3:16 pm
Brown v. [read post]
8 Jul 2013, 4:16 pm
Macy’s, Inc. [read post]
7 Jun 2013, 5:24 pm
In Network Automation v. [read post]
11 Apr 2013, 3:33 pm
The EEOC Determined in Mia Macy v. [read post]
1 Apr 2013, 11:31 am
Additionally, Director Gigante indicated that the EEOC is teaming up with other federal agencies, including the Department of Labor, the Department of Justice, and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, to share information.The EEOC’s focus on the protection of LGBT employees follows its April 2012 decision in Macy v. [read post]
1 Apr 2013, 5:42 am
State v. [read post]
28 Mar 2013, 2:39 pm
., Peterson v. [read post]
19 Mar 2013, 5:15 pm
When Macy’s offered the book for 89 cents, the publisher sued. [read post]
31 Jan 2013, 12:56 pm
In its Macy v Holder decision, the commission stated that “intentional discrimination against a transgender individual because that person is transgender is, by definition, discrimination ‘based on …sex,’ and such discrimination therefore violates Title VII. [read post]
31 Jan 2013, 6:55 am
Macy's, Inc., 798 F. [read post]
4 Oct 2012, 12:24 pm
Even if they are correct, the parties pressing for government antitrust action against Google cannot claim the courts have ever recognized the concept of natural monopoly as a surrogate for the United States v. [read post]
5 Sep 2012, 10:26 am
Posted by Morin JacobThis year, in the case of Macy v. [read post]
7 Aug 2012, 5:20 pm
In Macy v Holder, the commission addressed a purely jurisdictional question, finding that a transgender male-to-female federal applicant’s complaint of discrimination because she is transgender could be processed under EEOC procedures. [read post]
6 Aug 2012, 8:27 am
State v. [read post]
26 Jun 2012, 8:59 pm
The EEOC has been creative in attempting to find protection in the absence of an enacted ENDA in protecting gender identity, change of sex and/or transgender status when it determined in Macy v. [read post]
20 Jun 2012, 12:20 pm
After the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. [read post]
