Search for: "Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp" Results 1 - 20 of 36
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Jul 2007, 3:02 am
Y & H Corp. that the 15 employee limit was not jurisdictional it barely got more than a ho-hum, at least from me.Just to prove my point I quote myself from my initial post on Arbaugh:"In a case that is of more importance to the technicalities of the legal process than to employment law, the Supreme Court yesterday held that the requirement of 15 employees for coverage of Title VII is an element of the plaintiff's case, not a jurisdictional… [read post]
23 Aug 2011, 6:31 am by Howard Wasserman
Y&H Corp., which established a clear-statement rule under which a rule is not jurisdictional if Congress does not label it jurisdictional. [read post]
3 Mar 2010, 5:33 am by Howard Wasserman
Y&H Corp. and concluded that, because Congress had not expressly defined § 411(a) as jurisdictional, it should be treated as non-jurisdictional. [read post]
1 Mar 2011, 10:42 am by Scott Dodson - Guest
Y&H Corp. (2006) that a requirement is nonjurisdictional unless Congress clearly expresses a contrary intent.  [read post]
28 Jun 2007, 12:36 pm
Y & H Corp]., 546 U.S. 500, 511 (2006), which the First has always used to screw people suing the government. [read post]
15 Apr 2019, 9:32 am by Charlotte Garden
Y&H Corp., a Title VII case holding that Congress must speak clearly when it means to impose jurisdictional requirements. [read post]
23 Apr 2019, 8:16 am by Charlotte Garden
Y&H Corp., another Title VII case, as “the best way to discern congressional intent. [read post]
17 Mar 2017, 3:28 pm
Y & H Corp. (2006) 546 U.S. 500, 510; Eberhart v. [read post]
10 Feb 2017, 6:20 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006), and we consider the Government's argument de novo, see, e.g., Hajro v. [read post]