Search for: "Kitchens v. Department of Labor & Employment"
Results 1 - 20
of 56
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Apr 2024, 9:27 am
For more information on SEC v. [read post]
23 Feb 2024, 4:58 pm
In Etheridge v. [read post]
3 May 2023, 9:05 pm
Department of Labor. [read post]
28 Apr 2023, 4:54 pm
In Etheridge v. [read post]
16 Dec 2022, 9:22 pm
People v. [read post]
15 May 2022, 9:11 pm
Megan Russo, Executive Editor October 20, 2021 | Regulating Prison Labor | Experts are debating whether current workplace protections adequately shield incarcerated workers. [read post]
10 Jun 2021, 7:05 am
In 2017, after an investigation, the Department of Labor fined the Willows Inn $149,000 for various labor violations, including forcing employees to work 14-hour shifts for as little as $50, and using interns as free labor. [read post]
13 Jul 2020, 8:49 am
In so ruling, the court rejected the Department of Labor’s 2018 “dual jobs” guidance which provides that employers may pay the sub-minimum hourly wage to restaurant workers for all related, untipped work, no matter how much time a tipped employee spends performing the untipped work. [read post]
6 Feb 2020, 10:10 am
Sharp v. [read post]
20 Dec 2018, 10:14 am
Department of Labor settlement. [read post]
20 Dec 2018, 3:30 am
Department of Labor settlement. [read post]
12 Dec 2018, 6:58 am
After his employment ended in July 2016, he filed a wage claim with the Maryland labor department alleging over $49,000 in unpaid overtime wages and this lawsuit followed. [read post]
25 Jul 2018, 11:05 am
The employee was fired from his job as a hotel cook due to unsanitary kitchen practices. [read post]
30 May 2018, 11:31 am
Courts or the Department of Labor are likely to impose hefty fines or penalties. [read post]
10 Apr 2018, 11:39 am
Department of Labor (the “DOL”) have long permitted employers to require the pooling of tips. [read post]
11 Sep 2017, 10:37 am
In Marsh v. [read post]
11 Sep 2017, 10:37 am
In Marsh v. [read post]
23 Nov 2016, 3:33 am
Department of Labor would have seriously infringed on the attorney-client relationship. [read post]
21 Sep 2016, 10:12 am
The fact that the rulemaking was premised not on health, labor or financial criteria, but on the departments’ own subjective evaluation about which employees more closely adhere to the religious views of their employers, “confirms that the authority claimed by” the departments “is beyond [their] expertise and incongruous with the [ACA’s] statutory purposes and design” (Gonzales v. [read post]
15 Mar 2016, 3:45 pm
Cumbie v. [read post]
