Search for: "Harris v. City of Santa Monica"
Results 21 - 40
of 61
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Nov 2013, 12:55 pm
City of Santa Monica, 56 Cal.4th 203 (2013). [read post]
1 Mar 2013, 8:00 am
City of Santa Monica oral argument, and I believe that he is likely the one turning the Court's focus to the remedies available here. [read post]
28 Jan 2013, 8:00 am
City of Santa Monica. [read post]
18 Dec 2012, 8:00 am
City of Santa Monica is pending in the State Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal declined to rule on this issue. [read post]
19 Apr 2016, 6:00 am
City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203. [read post]
13 Feb 2013, 8:20 am
In Harris v. [read post]
20 Feb 2013, 8:58 pm
City of Santa Monica, centered around a pregnant city employee who was fired by the city. [read post]
19 Apr 2016, 6:00 am
City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203. [read post]
1 Nov 2009, 9:01 am
Santa Monica, opinion here, held that the trial court prejudiced the city of Santa Monica by refusing to instruct the jury that even if discrimination played a role in Harris' termination, the City was entitled to win if it would have made the same decision regardless. [read post]
7 Feb 2013, 2:43 pm
In October 2004, the City of Santa Monica (“City”) hired Wynona Harris (“Harris”) as a bus driver trainee. [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]
26 Apr 2010, 2:09 pm
The City of Santa Monica wished to put on the defense that Harris would have been fired for poor performance regardless of her pregnancy due to her less than impeccable record of bus accidents, unexcused absences and unsatisfactory performance review. [read post]
15 Feb 2013, 9:36 am
The California Supreme Court just made a mixed up jumble of this mixed motive law in Harris v City of Santa Monica (2013) 13 C.D.O.S. 1516. [read post]
19 Feb 2013, 6:16 am
City of Santa Monica, No. [read post]
19 Feb 2013, 6:16 am
City of Santa Monica, No. [read post]
11 Feb 2013, 9:34 am
In Harris v. [read post]
11 Feb 2013, 10:10 am
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]
4 Oct 2013, 10:24 pm
City of Santa Monica mixed motive case. [read post]
