Search for: "Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC"
Results 21 - 40
of 44
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Mar 2014, 7:29 am
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]
19 May 2016, 5:40 pm
First, CRST argued that the Eighth Circuit’s rule that a prevailing defendant may recover fees only when a case is decided “on the merits” has no basis in the statute, conflicts with Christiansburg Garment Co. v. [read post]
26 May 2015, 11:25 am
Supreme Court’s decision in Christiansburg Garment Co. v. [read post]
14 Mar 2007, 7:14 am
" Christiansburg Garment Co. v. [read post]
23 May 2016, 8:26 am
“The congressional policy regarding the exercise of district court discretion in the ultimate decision whether to award fees does not distinguish between merits-based and nonmerits-based judgments,” the Court stated, noting that as it explained in Christiansburg Garment Co. v. [read post]
9 Sep 2013, 1:10 pm
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]
9 Sep 2013, 1:10 pm
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]
9 Sep 2013, 1:10 pm
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]
9 Sep 2013, 1:10 pm
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]
19 May 2016, 2:10 pm
The Court noted that Christiansburg Garment Co. v. [read post]
28 Apr 2008, 6:02 am
Supreme Court's decision in Christiansburg Garment Co. v. [read post]
20 May 2016, 1:54 pm
“The congressional policy regarding the exercise of district court discretion in the ultimate decision whether to award fees does not distinguish between merits-based and nonmerits-based judgments,” the Court stated, noting that as it explained in Christiansburg Garment Co. v. [read post]
18 May 2009, 9:05 pm
Dept. of Housing & Urban Dev., 717 F.2d 929, 931 (4th Cir. 1983) (quoting Christiansburg Garment Co. v. [read post]
15 May 2015, 10:02 am
Supreme Court case, Christiansburg Garment Co. v. [read post]
12 Dec 2008, 8:58 pm
(Id. at p. 865, citing Christiansburg Garment Co. v. [read post]
10 Jan 2011, 12:24 pm
The majority's opinion is not quite long enough to cite Christiansburg Garment Co. v. [read post]
8 May 2014, 9:21 am
We have twice declined to construe fee-shifting provisions narrowly on the basis that doing so would render them superfluous, given the background exception to the American rule, see Christiansburg Garment Co. v. [read post]
2 Jan 2011, 8:51 am
§ 216(b) (emphasis added); Christiansburg Garment Co. v. [read post]
1 Apr 2014, 7:31 am
Supreme Court’s decision in Christiansburg Garment Co v. [read post]
29 Nov 2018, 9:37 am
Supreme Court, in Christiansburg Garment Co. v. [read post]
