Search for: "Higgins v. New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc."
Results 1 - 3
of 3
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Apr 2018, 12:09 pm
New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc., 194 F.3d 252, 259 (1st Cir. 1999) (“Title VII does not proscribe harassment simply because of sexual orientation”); Simonton v. [read post]
15 Oct 2018, 7:17 am
New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc., where Judge Selya was recognizing that the absence of a need to use the McDonnell Douglas framework to prove discriminatory intent in failure-to-accommodate claims (because the failure to accommodate was necessarily “because of a disability”) did not affect the adverse-employment-action requirement. [read post]
17 Sep 2017, 4:50 am
New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc., the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that “Title VII does not proscribe harassment simply because of sexual orientation. [read post]
