Search for: "Arizona Employers' Liability Cases" Results 41 - 60 of 336
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Feb 2011, 2:00 am by John Day
Consequently, the defendant employer could potentially be subject to liability throughout the plaintiff’s lifetime.”  [read post]
29 Nov 2010, 7:07 am by Lyle Denniston
The issue is the whether the employer must be found to have actually caused the harm, even if its actions were not the sole cause, before it can be found liable under the Federal EmployersLiability Act. [read post]
12 Apr 2018, 9:00 pm
Employers in Arizona can lawfully turn away applicants who have a DUI arrest, even a misdemeanor conviction. [read post]
24 Feb 2014, 7:03 am by Brad Hokanson
  The couple owed outstanding federal employment, unemployment, and income tax liabilities covering multiple tax years from the early 1990s through 2007. [read post]
3 Feb 2020, 4:29 am by Tammy Binford, Contributing Editor
” Regardless of the potential for legal liability, sending sick employees home is a good idea. [read post]
10 Mar 2016, 9:29 am by Lorene Park
In one case, a Missouri employer gave an employee 24 weeks of maternity leave in 2012. [read post]
15 Nov 2018, 9:08 am by dhdlaw
  You further investigate the defendant and discover that they were acting within the course and scope of their employment at the time of the accident (delivering goods to a retail store on behalf of their employer), thus exposing the employer to liability under the doctrine of vicarious liability. [read post]
Hogan sued CoreCivic in Arizona federal court, claiming she was subjected to a hostile work environment. [read post]
Hogan sued CoreCivic in Arizona federal court, claiming she was subjected to a hostile work environment. [read post]
8 Jun 2016, 9:44 am by azatty
We can barely count how many cases dealing with controversial or cutting-edge subjects seem to come up in Arizona. [read post]
12 Apr 2018, 10:27 am by Holland & Hart
This is a significant decision that could increase potential liability for Equal Pay Act (EPA) claims for employers with workers in states covered by the Ninth Circuit, namely California, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii. [read post]
20 Mar 2013, 6:23 am by John Delaney
We have written before about cases involving disputes between employers and employees over work-related social media accounts, but a new case out of Arizona federal court raises issues that appear to be unlike those we have addressed previously. [read post]
17 Apr 2013, 2:21 pm by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer
  The Department of Labor Veterans’ Employment & Training Service (VETS) reported to Congress that in Fiscal Year (FY) 2011, VETS reviewed 1,548 new unique USERRA complaint cases, up 110 cases from those received in FY 2010. [read post]
25 Aug 2016, 10:48 am by Mark Temple and Allison Williams
In the underlying case, two former Ernest & Young (E&Y) employees filed a class and collective action lawsuit claiming that the accounting firm misclassified their jobs as exempt from the overtime pay provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to avoid overtime liability. [read post]
3 Apr 2012, 6:53 pm by Paul Freehling
According to the court, the majority of cases arising under those statutes hold that the employer’s conduct, whatever it happened to be, was not prohibited, and the principle to be gleaned by from the few decisions against employers is that they incur liability only where they act “with the wrongful intent to inhibit or prevent [former] employees from obtaining future employment.” [read post]
19 Jul 2011, 6:17 am by A. Benjamin Spencer
Whiting: Arizona may administer the “business death penalty” to employers who hire illegal immigrants.Williamson v. [read post]
5 Mar 2013, 1:51 pm by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer
  In all cases, any health coverage offered generally will have to be something that the business can prudently pay for and administer that also complies with all applicable mandates based on the size of the employer as determined by the applicable federal rules. [read post]
28 Mar 2018, 8:00 am by Robert Kreisman
The appeals panel found that plaintiffs properly pled a cause of action for negligence and willful and wanton misconduct under both Arizona and Texas law and loss of child consortium under Arizona law and thus the case was remanded back for further proceedings consistent with that opinion. [read post]