Search for: "Downes v. IBP, Inc." Results 1 - 8 of 8
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Dec 2014, 3:00 am by Tim O'Connell and Ryan Gibson
  For example, Busk did not disrupt one of the Court’s previous significant decision involving preliminary and postliminary time, IBP Inc. v. [read post]
14 Jun 2011, 10:19 am by Greg Mersol
IBP, Inc., 339 F.3d 894, 902-903 (9th Cir. 2003), aff’d, 546 U.S. 21 (2005), that an activity is “integral and indispensable” if the activity is:  1) “necessary to the principal work performed”  and 2) “done for the benefit of the employer.”  [read post]
14 Jul 2009, 6:37 am
(Editor’s Note: This post comes to us from Katrina Dewey, CEO & Publisher, Lawdragon, Inc.) [read post]