Search for: "EEOC v. United Parcel Service, Inc."
Results 41 - 60
of 70
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Nov 2014, 7:13 am
United Parcel Service, Inc., No. 12-1226, which poses whether the Pregnancy Discrimination Act requires an employer to accommodate a pregnant woman with work restrictions related to pregnancy in the same manner as it accommodates a non-pregnant employee with the same restrictions, but not related to pregnancy. [read post]
5 Nov 2014, 4:33 am
On October 2nd, the Supreme Court granted cert. in a Title VII religious accommodation case, EEOC v. [read post]
29 Oct 2014, 6:55 am
United Parcel Service, Inc. [read post]
3 Oct 2014, 12:58 pm
United Parcel Service, Inc., the Justices are asked to determine the extent to which employers must accommodate pregnant employees in light of accommodations extended to other workers. [read post]
28 Jul 2014, 2:00 am
United Parcel Services, Inc. next term. [read post]
22 Jul 2014, 9:10 am
United Parcel Service, Inc., the same case the Supreme Court agreed on July 1 to hear during its next term. [read post]
15 Jul 2014, 7:12 am
United Parcel Service, Inc., in which the Court is likely to address many of these issues, including the premise that a routine pregnancy is a disability under the ADAAA that must be reasonably accommodated. [read post]
9 Jul 2014, 11:23 am
United Parcel Service, Inc. [read post]
27 Jun 2014, 8:36 am
United Parcel Service, 12-1226, involves a UPS employee who was not permitted to return to work when pregnant because her doctor said she should not lift objects over twenty pounds. [read post]
17 Jun 2014, 7:15 am
United Parcel Service 12-1226Issue: Whether, and in what circumstances, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 42 U.S.C. [read post]
30 May 2014, 9:20 am
In B&B Hardware, Inc. v. [read post]
25 Feb 2014, 10:00 pm
United Parcel Service, Inc., the U.S. [read post]
25 Feb 2014, 10:00 pm
United Parcel Service, Inc., the U.S. [read post]
18 Feb 2014, 4:57 pm
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied United Parcel Services, Inc. [read post]
14 Feb 2014, 5:36 am
Because the EEOC’s Sec. 12112(b)(6) claim was not premised on attendance but rather on the employer’s alleged 100-percent healed requirement, the 12-month policy could be considered an impermissible qualification standard and not an essential function, a federal district court in Illinois, denying the company’s motion to dismiss (EEOC v United Parcel Service, Inc, February 11, 2014, Ellis, S). 12-month leave policy. [read post]
16 Aug 2013, 5:27 am
For example, in Rau v United Parcel Service, Inc, a federal district court granted summary judgment for an employer on all claims by a female UPS supervisor that depended on allegations that she was treated worse than her ex-boyfriend, who was also a UPS supervisor. [read post]
18 Jan 2013, 3:13 pm
Thanks to Judge Dow’s United Parcel Service decision, those days are about over. [read post]
7 Sep 2012, 3:10 pm
United Parcel Service Inc., No. 09-CV-05291 (N.D. [read post]
7 Jun 2012, 12:24 pm
United Parcel Service, Inc., 2011 WL 4538450 (N.D. [read post]
30 Oct 2011, 2:31 am
http://j.st/pjU United Parcel Service, Inc. v. [read post]
