Search for: "EEOC v. CIRCUIT CITY STORES"
Results 21 - 40
of 52
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Mar 2015, 2:49 am
Yesterday the Court heard oral arguments in City of Los Angeles v. [read post]
19 Mar 2008, 6:11 am
This post focuses on the limitations that the ADA imposes on such testing, and concludes that the Seventh Circuit’s approach to the issue in Karraker v. [read post]
24 Apr 2009, 3:47 am
Apr. 20, 2009)(Unpub)Affirming dismissal of 63yo White male convenient store manager's age/sex/race discharge claim7th Circuit> Winsley v. [read post]
29 Nov 2008, 11:47 am
Chattanooga City Wide Svc. [read post]
20 Apr 2009, 3:27 am
Apr. 8, 2009)(Unpub)EEOC flips dismissal of its sex/RIF claims for 2 fems10th CircuitØ Pinkerton v. [read post]
16 Mar 2022, 2:35 pm
City and County of San Francisco and Berger v. [read post]
13 Apr 2009, 4:00 am
Apr. 7, 2009)Affirming dismissal of fem cop's religion discrim etc claims; wearing hijaab impairs city's interest in impartial police uniform Noted here: Law.Com5th Circuit Powers v. [read post]
31 May 2007, 10:00 pm
The Real Lessons of Ledbetter v. [read post]
27 Feb 2015, 5:08 am
Oral argument was held Wednesday in EEOC v. [read post]
10 Jun 2011, 12:47 pm
Second, in 2001, in Circuit City Stores v. [read post]
7 Sep 2017, 12:55 pm
Supreme Court, in its 2015 decision in EEOC v. [read post]
25 Feb 2019, 9:01 pm
The third case, EEOC v. [read post]
13 Jul 2017, 10:07 am
Green v. [read post]
12 Jul 2017, 10:27 am
Green v. [read post]
13 Jul 2017, 10:07 am
Green v. [read post]
1 May 2009, 3:48 am
Fred's Stores of Arkansas> 10th Cir. [read post]
9 May 2014, 4:39 am
This is the position that has been taken by the Fifth Circuit in the EEOC v. [read post]
4 Aug 2020, 10:43 am
City of Philadelphia. [read post]
4 Jul 2018, 11:40 am
Casey, the 1992 decision reaffirming Roe v. [read post]
Arizona District Court Certifies Class Of Lesbian And Gay State Employees In Denial Of Benefits Case
27 Dec 2013, 7:22 am
In support of the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2), Plaintiffs cited directly to Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
