Search for: "United States v. American Employers Insurance Co."
Results 161 - 180
of 334
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Aug 2014, 7:10 am
This blog post is the third of three on labor and employment law cases by the United States Supreme Court in the last Term. [read post]
17 Aug 2014, 9:01 pm
That is what happened in United States v. [read post]
7 Aug 2014, 7:22 pm
Thus, the employee’s allegations of age harassment were not isolated or trivial but rather demonstrated a pattern of discrimination against her based on her age sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss (Landucci v State Farm Insurance Co). [read post]
21 Jul 2014, 9:01 pm
Finally, although the PDA expressly states that employers do not have to provide insurance coverage for abortion, the Guidance concludes that they cannot take adverse action against a woman for seeking an abortion, nor encourage her to get one in order to keep her job. [read post]
8 Jul 2014, 11:47 am
Zurich American Insurance Co., 2014 U.S. [read post]
2 Jul 2014, 7:19 am
Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, said, “The justices have set a dangerous precedent. [read post]
1 Jul 2014, 12:18 pm
Half of all pregnancies in the United States (more than three million a year) are unintended. [read post]
27 Jun 2014, 8:36 am
Wong, 13-1074, and United States v. [read post]
30 May 2014, 9:20 am
” Last fall the Court invited the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States. [read post]
27 May 2014, 3:27 am
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ JAY BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. [read post]
15 May 2014, 10:00 am
Employersyand fiduciaries of 401(k) plans should take note of the potential need to adopt a mid-year amendment to their plans to comply with new guidance of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) concerning the need to timely amend their plans to comply with IRS recent guidance on when their plans must afford same-sex partners treatment equivalent to opposite-sex married couples issued in response to the Supreme Court’s decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in… [read post]
14 May 2014, 9:27 am
Let’s review an Illinois case from a few years back, United Stationers Supply Co v. [read post]
13 Apr 2014, 8:59 am
Scott Paper Co. v. [read post]
10 Apr 2014, 9:01 pm
We are inclined to agree with Chief Justice Rehnquist’s dissenting opinion in Pacific Gas and Electric Co. v. [read post]
2 Apr 2014, 9:26 am
Today the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court just decided, in Holmes v. [read post]
25 Feb 2014, 8:16 am
Smith, Staff Counsel at Americans United for Life (Counsel of Record for Drury Development Corporation et al. in Sebelius v. [read post]
24 Feb 2014, 7:36 pm
IndyMac MBS, Inc. 13-640Issue: Whether the filing of a putative class action serves, under American Pipe & Construction Co. v. [read post]
18 Feb 2014, 5:35 am
’ ” United Slate, Local 307 v. [read post]
14 Feb 2014, 12:00 pm
American United Life Insurance Company 13-536Issue: Whether the court below erroneously held, in conflict with the decisions of six other circuits, that a person who exercises some authority or control over the assets of an ERISA plan is a fiduciary with respect to that plan only if he is alleged to have “mismanaged” the plan’s assets. [read post]
21 Jan 2014, 7:35 am
Commissioner (1989) and United States v. [read post]
