Search for: "Black v. Black" Results 1461 - 1480 of 12,677
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Oct 2008, 9:55 pm
Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Tinker v. [read post]
13 Jan 2025, 6:02 pm by Arkady Itkin
In its decision in Bailey v San Francisco District Attorney’s Office, the California Supreme Court has recently affirmed that even a single incident of using “N” word by a coworker in reference to a black employee can be a sufficient basis for making an unlawful harassment and hostile work environment. [read post]
Banned symbols include the letters “V” or “Z” and the black and orange ribbon of St. [read post]
21 Oct 2011, 3:44 am
In the case of Harrison & ANOR v Black Horse [2011] EWCA Civ 1128 it was held that a lender's failure to disclose to borrowers that it received commission for selling them payment protection insurance did not amount to unfairness under s.140A and s.140B Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the Act).The borrowers were told that the Payment Protection Plan premium was £10,200. [read post]
10 Dec 2008, 5:24 am
Being a reader of the Amsterdam Daily News, which describes itself as "one of New York's largest and most influential Black-owned and operated business institutions" and which has a circulation of about 25,000, is a legitimate ground for exercising a peremptory challenge against an African-American jury panel member, the Second Circuit held in United States v. [read post]
4 Jan 2011, 4:05 am
A school employee giving reasonable assurance of continued employment is ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits between school yearsMatter of Sultana v New York City Dept. of Educ., 2010 NY Slip Op 09598, Appellate Division, Third DepartmentIt is “black letter law” that "A professional employee of an educational institution is precluded from receiving unemployment insurance benefits during the time between two successive academic years where the claimant… [read post]
15 Dec 2009, 5:00 am by zshapiro
” In Beard, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department Of Corrections, et al. v. [read post]