Search for: "Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp."
Results 81 - 97
of 97
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Nov 2011, 2:01 pm
SmithKline Beecham Corp. [read post]
29 Nov 2011, 6:51 am
Bloomberg’s Greg Stohr also provides coverage of the grant in Christopher v. [read post]
29 Nov 2011, 4:11 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp. [read post]
28 Nov 2011, 11:42 am
Adler) Among this morning’s cert grants was Christopher v. [read post]
28 Nov 2011, 8:57 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp. [read post]
28 Nov 2011, 7:50 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp. [read post]
10 Aug 2011, 1:51 pm
SmithKline Beecham Corp., 635 F.3d 383 (9th Cir. 2011) and the unavailability of the FLSA's administrative exemption, pharmaceutical companies will remain somewhat in limbo as to whether they may appropriately treat such employees as exempt. [read post]
25 Jun 2011, 6:55 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp., this decision is particularly disturbing. [read post]
11 Mar 2011, 8:09 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp., that a proposed class of pharmaceutical sales representatives (“Sales Reps”) were exempt from overtime pay pursuant to the “outside sales exemption. [read post]
8 Mar 2011, 1:23 pm
Cir. 2006) (en banc in part) SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. [read post]
27 Feb 2011, 12:26 pm
SmithKline Beecham Corp. (9th Circuit, February 14, 2011), reviewed elsewhere in this blog. [read post]
27 Feb 2011, 12:25 pm
In a case of first impression within this circuit, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Christopher v. [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 12:54 pm
SmithKline Beecham Corp., 9th Cir. [read post]
15 Feb 2011, 10:44 am
In Christopher v. [read post]
15 Feb 2011, 5:48 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp. were pharmaceutical sales representatives. [read post]
15 Feb 2011, 4:06 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp. [read post]
17 Sep 2009, 4:30 am
See Johnson v. [read post]
