Search for: "Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp."
Results 81 - 97
of 97
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Jul 2012, 5:00 am
” And in a second case, Christopher v. [read post]
23 Jun 2016, 8:46 am
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]
26 Jan 2016, 10:43 am
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]
6 May 2016, 5:20 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp. [read post]
15 Jun 2012, 9:52 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp. [read post]
21 Jun 2012, 10:47 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp.? [read post]
3 Aug 2017, 12:05 pm
Steel and Christopher v. [read post]
24 Oct 2022, 8:54 am
Hudgens v. [read post]
13 May 2014, 6:46 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp. [read post]
6 Apr 2012, 1:58 pm
SmithKline Beecham Corp., a case about the “outside salesmen” exemption to the Fair Labor Standards Act. [read post]
1 Oct 2015, 6:47 am
The reason for the outside salesman exemption, the court noted, was explained in Christopher v. [read post]
17 Sep 2009, 4:30 am
See Johnson v. [read post]
16 Jul 2016, 1:48 pm
Garrison Architects v. [read post]
4 Mar 2012, 9:02 am
See, e.g., Christopher B. [read post]
19 Jul 2022, 6:14 am
Colo. 2011). [4] Rost v. [read post]
24 Oct 2019, 10:40 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp., 567 U.S. 142 (2012). [read post]
10 Feb 2023, 4:44 am
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]