Search for: "Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC"
Results 21 - 40
of 41
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 May 2015, 8:00 am
In exercising this discretion, courts must follow the rule set forth in 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]
1 Apr 2014, 7:31 am
Supreme Court’s decision in Christiansburg Garment Co v. [read post]
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]
8 Oct 2013, 6:32 am
Citing the longstanding case of 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]
15 Jan 2013, 10:44 am
Supreme Court entitled Christiansburg Garment Co. v. [read post]
9 Feb 2012, 9:37 am
Taniguchi cites the Court’s landmark ruling in Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. [read post]
31 Jan 2012, 10:28 am
The statute makes no distinction between the standard for prevailing plaintiffs versus prevailing defendants, but in Christiansburg Garment Co. v. [read post]
7 Nov 2011, 7:10 am
Supreme Court’s holding in Christiansburg Garment Co. v. [read post]
8 May 2011, 7:31 pm
Peoplemark, Inc., the Court in Tricore applied the well-established standard from Christiansburg Garment Co. v. [read post]
7 Apr 2011, 7:39 am
Citing the longstanding case of 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]
2 Jan 2011, 8:51 am
§ 216(b) (emphasis added); Christiansburg Garment Co. v. [read post]
17 Apr 2010, 5:24 am
Co., 700 F.2d 785 (2d Cir.1983). [read post]
26 Feb 2010, 5:09 am
However, an award of attorneys' fees to a prevailing defendant is appropriate in much more limited circumstances.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]
12 Dec 2008, 8:58 pm
(Id. at p. 865, citing Christiansburg Garment Co. v. [read post]
28 Apr 2008, 6:02 am
Supreme Court's decision in Christiansburg Garment Co. v. [read post]
