Search for: "Arizona Employers' Liability Cases" Results 61 - 80 of 412
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
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]
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]
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]
4 Jan 2011, 3:54 pm by Scott David Stewart
Included are the factors that Arizona family courts look to when determining whether spousal support should be awarded in a case. [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]
5 Nov 2012, 8:13 am by Betty S.W. Graumlich
 The Fourth Circuit, unable to predict how the Virginia Supreme Court would rule on this issue, certified the individual liability question to the Virginia Supreme Court. [read post]
26 Jun 2012, 3:20 am by Mark Toth
The Supremes will scrutinize the supervisor liability rule established in the Faragher and Burlington Industries cases and resolve whether it applies to (1) harassment by anyone with the authority to oversee the complainant’s work or merely (2) those with the power to “hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline” the complainant. [read post]
14 Oct 2012, 7:12 am by Angelo A. Paparelli
  Governments can also control the behavior of companies, as Arizona has done in enacting a statute mandating enrollment in E-Verify, the Department of Homeland Security’s employment-eligibility verification database – a law the Supreme Court upheld in U.S. [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]
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]
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]
6 Nov 2018, 10:56 am by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer
  These governmental entities also should seek the advice of qualified legal counsel about the advisability of taking any retrospective action to self-correct any potential past deficiencies in compliance, if any, for which the entity might bear potential liability to the extent that the applicable state of limitations has not run on those claims. [1] Justice Kavanaugh did not join in the opinion as he took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. [read post]
12 Apr 2018, 7:01 pm by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer
Misclassification of workers providing services as non-employees increasingly causes U.S. businesses to incur unanticipated FLSA and other wage and hour law liability for back pay, liquidated punitive damages, civil monetary penalties and other liability, in part because of WHD’s stepped up worker education, scrutiny, investigation, and enforcement challenging employers’ treatment of workers as non-employees. [read post]