Search for: "Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp." Results 1 - 20 of 97
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Feb 2023, 4:44 am by admin
Putting aside the idiosyncratic chapter by the late Professor Berger, most of the third edition of the Reference Manual presented guidance on many important issues. [read post]
14 Jul 2019, 5:03 pm by Larry
SmithKline Beecham Corp., 567 US 142, 155 (2012) which was further quoting Bowen v. [read post]
23 Jun 2016, 8:46 am by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
SmithKline Beecham Corp. when considering the exempt status of pharmaceutical sales representatives, may be of use to employers in challenging other recent DOL regulatory changes. [read post]
20 Jun 2016, 3:50 pm by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Authored by Jeff Glaser As we’ve discussed on this blog before, the Supreme Court’s decision in Christopher v SmithKline Beecham Corp. had many layers. [read post]
6 May 2016, 5:20 am by John Elwood
SmithKline Beecham Corp. [read post]
26 Jan 2016, 10:43 am by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
SmithKline Beecham Corp., which would have excluded pharmaceutical sales representatives, and favored a “functional,” “flexible,” and “realistic” rather than “technical” and “formalistic” approach to interpreting the FLSA exemption. [read post]
1 Oct 2015, 6:47 am by Joy Waltemath
The reason for the outside salesman exemption, the court noted, was explained in Christopher v. [read post]