Search for: "Burlington Northern Santa Fe"
Results 161 - 180
of 235
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Sep 2011, 3:11 pm
The ARB formally adopted the Williams standard, which states that any nontrivial unfavorable employment action is an adverse action, but curiously the ARB also retained the Title VII Burlington Northern standard as a persuasive interpretive tool. [read post]
27 Jan 2012, 8:45 am
The 10 issues to watch are: Offshore wind power generation Renewable energy incentive programs Hydraulic fracturing regulation Aggregation Greenhouse gas litigation California's cap-and-trade program California's Green Chemistry program New mercury standards for coal and oil-burning power plants Fallout from CERCLA decision in Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. [read post]
23 Oct 2012, 4:01 am
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co., 535 F.3d 759 (7th Cir. 2008). [read post]
19 Aug 2009, 11:52 am
Supreme Court decision in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. [read post]
22 Aug 2017, 12:55 pm
Fatal Train Accident Near Merced I’m Ed Smith, a Merced personal injury lawyer. [read post]
25 Jun 2014, 5:00 am
Rose serves as a member of BNSF Railway Company and Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC. [read post]
8 May 2009, 4:02 pm
Supreme Court handed down its 8 to 1 decision in the much anticipated case of Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co., et al v. [read post]
21 Mar 2011, 7:50 am
In its 2009 opinion in Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Ry. [read post]
1 Sep 2011, 5:00 pm
Burckhard was a locomotive engineer who worked for Burlington Northern Santa Fe and had about seven years of railroad experience. [read post]
3 Apr 2008, 3:01 pm
Supreme Court’s decision in Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. [read post]
17 Oct 2008, 2:34 pm
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co., 535 F.3d 759 (7th Cir. 2008)(Bullard plaintiffs request to a stipulation to a trial covering fewer than 100 plaintiffs required under CAFA for an action to be deemed a “mass action” did not impact CAFA jurisdiction.). [read post]
4 Jun 2008, 9:56 pm
Supreme Court's decision in Burlington Northern& Santa Fe Railway Co. v. [read post]
26 Jan 2011, 8:20 am
And, the Roberts Court also decided Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. [read post]
22 Oct 2011, 4:00 am
By Rick Shapiro, Railroad Worker Illness and FELA Attorney Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific, the two largest freight railroads providing service to ports in California (CA), have been sued by a coalition of environmental groups who claim that the diesel fumes emitted by the trucks, heavy equipment and locomotives at the companies’ rail yards pose an unacceptable cancer and lung disease risk to railroad employees and people living and working in… [read post]
30 Jun 2011, 2:57 pm
In March 2011, A crash involving a van containing Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad workers and a BNSF freight train occurred at a crossing in a rail yard in Kelso, Washington (WA), That crash killed three of the rail employees and left a fourth man in the vehicle with severe injuries. [read post]
3 Mar 2015, 8:28 am
The court refused to decide whether that element requires a showing of “material adversity” – as articulated for Title VII claims in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. [read post]
1 May 2008, 7:47 am
The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California secretly tested workers for sickle cell trait and other genetic disorders from the 1960s through 1993; workers were told it was routine cholesterol screening.In another incident, Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co. paid 36 employees $2.2 million in 2002 to settle a lawsuit in which the workers claimed the company sought to genetically test them without their knowledge after they had submitted… [read post]
7 Apr 2020, 11:42 am
” Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. [read post]
2 Sep 2011, 1:31 am
In Missouri (MO), a switchman who had worked with Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway suffered an irreparable tear to the disc between two of the vertebrae in his lower back when the switch he was working first jammed, then snapped back into him. [read post]
18 Mar 2014, 7:01 am
Finding no clear error in a magistrate judge’s ruling that it would exceed the scope of Rule 34 to require a railway company to allow the EEOC and an intervening plaintiff to record, onsite, the performance of all essential functions of a job for which the plaintiff was rejected due to a hand impairment and to question current employees performing such tasks in “roving depositions,” a federal district court in Kansas denied a motion to review the magistrate’s order rejecting,… [read post]
