Search for: "EEOC v. United Parcel Service, Inc." Results 41 - 60 of 66
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Oct 2014, 12:58 pm by Pamela Wolf
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]
15 Jul 2014, 7:12 am by Brian Hall
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]
27 Jun 2014, 8:36 am by John Elwood
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 by Maureen Johnston
United Parcel Service 12-1226Issue: Whether, and in what circumstances, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 42 U.S.C. [read post]
14 Feb 2014, 5:36 am by Joy Waltemath
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 by Lorene Park
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]
24 May 2010, 4:54 pm
  This bill is intended to supersede a California appellate ruling, Progressive Concrete Inc., v. [read post]
16 Jan 2010, 9:00 pm by Adjunct LawProfs
EEOC v United Parcel Service, Inc, ___F.3d____(2d Cir.November 19, 2009), is a type of employment discrimination procedural case that we do not see very often. [read post]