Search for: "GRIEVES v. SUPERIOR COURT" Results 1 - 20 of 35
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Sep 2008, 1:17 pm
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic Vicinage, (DeLuccia, J.S.C.) recently interpreted a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) pertaining to discipline in the case of Whitaker v. [read post]
19 Sep 2011, 8:41 am by Employment Lawyers
THE NEW JERSEY BOSS WHO TOLD GRIEVING MOTHER TO FORGET DECEASED DAUGHTER The Superior Court of New Jersey (one step above a Common Pleas court and one step below New Jersey's Supreme Court), issued a recent employment-law decision that has made national news. [read post]
7 Dec 2014, 7:15 am by John H Curley
In light of this finding, the Court did not reach the public policy question.In contrast, public policy was the primary basis for the decision of the Connecticut Superior Court in State of Connecticut v. [read post]
27 Dec 2015, 7:17 am by John H Curley
 The Court's decision (University Systems of New Hampshire Board of Trustees v. [read post]
8 Sep 2013, 7:40 am by John H Curley
The Superior Court rejected these positions and confirmed the award. [read post]
20 Oct 2014, 4:51 am by Daniel Schwartz
Two recent cases, one from a Superior Court and one from the Connecticut District Court, answer that question in the affirmative. [read post]
26 Jul 2019, 10:35 am by Andrew Vey
That said, as more and more cases of alleged sexual harassment continue to work their way through different judicial processes, we are starting to see courts and administrative tribunals embrace new tools to help protect complainants through what can often seem a daunting process.For instance, back in August 2018, we wrote about a then-new decision from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice: Render v. [read post]
27 Sep 2010, 6:58 am
The lower court improperly considered testimony from Wilson’s unemployment insurance hearing, which is not admissible in court proceedings, citing Labor Law Section 537[1] and Beacham v Brown, 215 AD2d 334.The Appellate Division concluded that the lower court misread the record and noted that “[a]bsent bad faith, a municipal agency may summarily terminate a probationary employee for any reason. [read post]