Search for: "Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC" Results 1 - 20 of 39
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Mar 2016, 6:52 am by Ross Runkel
The Court in its 1978 decision Christiansburg Garment Co. v. [read post]
9 Sep 2013, 2:10 pm by Epstein Becker & Green
It had long been argued by attorneys representing employees in these types of cases that Section 218.5 should be interpreted to mean that a prevailing employer would only be entitled to its fees if the employee’s suit was found to be frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation – a standard announced in Christiansburg Garment Co. v. [read post]
29 Mar 2016, 8:06 am by Ross Runkel
The Court’s 1978 decision in Christiansburg Garment Co. v. [read post]
24 Feb 2016, 1:21 pm by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  The Eighth Circuit also held that CRST could not satisfy the standard of Christianburg Garment Co. v. [read post]
24 Mar 2016, 1:50 pm by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
”   The Eighth Circuit also held that CRST could not satisfy the standard of Christianburg Garment Co. v. [read post]
8 May 2011, 7:31 pm by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Peoplemark, Inc., the Court in Tricore applied the well-established standard from Christiansburg Garment Co. v. [read post]
31 Jan 2012, 10:28 am by Mack Sperling
The statute makes no distinction between the standard for prevailing plaintiffs versus prevailing defendants, but in Christiansburg Garment Co. v. [read post]
26 Mar 2014, 7:29 am by Joy Waltemath
The appeals court declined to consider the EEOC’s contention that the laches defense, which had won the day for the employer in the district court, should not be applied in actions brought by federal agencies, and that it would be “unjust” to award attorneys’ fees incurred in pursuit of that defense (EEOC v Propak Logistics, Inc, March 25, 2014, Keenan, B). [read post]