Search for: "Harris v. City of Santa Monica"
Results 1 - 20
of 61
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Sep 2021, 10:37 am
In that situation, as it was in the 2013 case of Wynona Harris v. [read post]
8 Apr 2020, 6:50 am
City of Santa Monica, California 19-1081Issues: (1) Whether a local ordinance that discriminates against interstate commerce, and was enacted for a discriminatory purpose, must additionally discriminate exclusively against nonresidents to be subject to heightened scrutiny under the dormant commerce clause; and (2) whether a local ordinance that purports to ban advertisements for interstate services made over the internet, and is enforced in that extraterritorial manner,… [read post]
31 May 2016, 12:28 pm
Under a 2013 Supreme Court decision, Harris v. [read post]
31 May 2016, 12:28 pm
Under a 2013 Supreme Court decision, Harris v. [read post]
19 Apr 2016, 6:00 am
City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203. [read post]
19 Apr 2016, 6:00 am
City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203. [read post]
28 Mar 2016, 8:46 am
City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal. 4th 203. [read post]
21 Mar 2016, 6:00 am
City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203. [read post]
21 Mar 2016, 6:00 am
City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203. [read post]
14 Mar 2016, 10:33 am
City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal. 4th 203, which interpreted that standard under FEHA as follows: To support a claim for unlawful discrimination or retaliation under FEHA, an employee must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a protected category was a substantial motivating factor in the denial of an employment benefit. (2 C.C.R. 11009(c)). [read post]
30 Nov 2015, 12:35 pm
City of Santa Monica. [read post]
2 Jan 2015, 12:34 pm
The Supreme Court of California determined in Harris v. [read post]
11 Mar 2014, 5:42 am
City of Santa Monica, stated that the instruction should read “substantial motivating factor. [read post]
1 Nov 2013, 12:55 pm
City of Santa Monica, 56 Cal.4th 203 (2013). [read post]
22 Oct 2013, 8:00 am
Governor Brown has vetoed legislation intended to address the California Supreme Court's decision in Harris v. [read post]
4 Oct 2013, 10:24 pm
City of Santa Monica mixed motive case. [read post]
13 Sep 2013, 1:00 pm
In Harris v. [read post]
10 Sep 2013, 11:58 am
City of Santa Monica, 56 Cal.4th 203 (2013), because a FEHA discrimination claimant now is required to show that the protected status was a “substantial motivating reason” for the adverse action, and not merely “a motivating reason,” as the earlier versions of the jury instructions stated. [read post]
26 Jul 2013, 10:58 am
City of Santa Monica specifically dealt with a mixed motive case. [read post]
18 Jul 2013, 5:31 pm
City of Santa Monica), David deRubertis (counsel on the plaintiff's side in Harris), Kimberly Kralowec (blogging here, of course), Norm Pine (who argued the plaintiff's side in Harris), and Felix Shafir (Horvitz & Levy).How to make a big name for yourself? [read post]
