Search for: "Smith v. Department of Employment"
Results 61 - 80
of 715
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Jul 2023, 6:00 am
We agree with SDHR that petitioner failed to establish that she suffered an adverse employment action arising out of the refusal of the Rochester Police Department (RPD) to issue a smaller service weapon (see Matter of Gordon v New York State Dept. of Corr. [read post]
7 Jul 2023, 6:00 am
We agree with SDHR that petitioner failed to establish that she suffered an adverse employment action arising out of the refusal of the Rochester Police Department (RPD) to issue a smaller service weapon (see Matter of Gordon v New York State Dept. of Corr. [read post]
13 Sep 2011, 5:13 am
” No, according to the Court of Appeal's ruling in Patterson v Smith, 53 NY2d 98. [read post]
4 Mar 2019, 4:00 am
Disqualifying an applicant for examination or for appoint to, or continued employment in, a position in the classified serviceSokol v New York City Civ. [read post]
4 Mar 2019, 4:00 am
Disqualifying an applicant for examination or for appoint to, or continued employment in, a position in the classified serviceSokol v New York City Civ. [read post]
28 Apr 2020, 11:36 am
Department of Labor’s minimum salary threshold for exempt employees (currently $35,568 annually) with a written wage statement specifically showing (i) the number of hours worked; (ii) the rate of pay; (iii) the gross wages earned during the pay period; (iv) the amount and purpose of any deductions; and (v) information sufficient to enable the employee to determine how the gross and net pay were calculated. [read post]
25 Jun 2019, 7:55 am
In Eplee v. [read post]
29 Oct 2020, 8:16 am
For one, the justices could jettison the flawed framework established in Employment Division v. [read post]
24 Aug 2012, 1:16 pm
Reed Smith will continue to monitor and provide guidance regarding the status of DOL’s proposed rule and its impact for employers. [read post]
3 Jul 2015, 5:38 pm
After then considering the fact that in Smith v. [read post]
10 Aug 2020, 8:20 am
Montana Department of Revenue, Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. [read post]
18 Feb 2010, 2:30 am
The EAT took the view that both were parties to a contract and thus mutually obliged to perform their obligations, with Lady Smith (at para 87) saying; “If a party to such a contract is in material breach of one of his obligations he cannot insist that the other party perform a reciprocal term” This isn’t new law – the same principle was set out in the 2008 case of RDF v Clements all the way back to Thorneloe v McDonald & Co in… [read post]
6 Jan 2015, 11:52 am
A decision from the Supreme Court in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. [read post]
21 Feb 2017, 10:57 pm
Specifically, in Smith v. [read post]
16 Feb 2013, 6:08 am
Barlow v. [read post]
17 Nov 2011, 10:54 am
Smith v. [read post]
16 Dec 2013, 6:36 am
Moreover, with respect to that one of the two options a RFRA claim is virtually foreclosed by the Court’s unanimous 1982 decision in United States v. [read post]
3 Dec 2018, 4:00 am
Smith v Kunkel, 152 AD2d 893, concerned the issue of an employer’s refusal to permit an employee to withdraw a resignation following its delivery to the appropriate appointing authority.Smith, a permanent state employee with the State Division of Equalization and Assessment, submitted his resignation for “personal reasons. [read post]
3 Dec 2018, 4:00 am
Smith v Kunkel, 152 AD2d 893, concerned the issue of an employer’s refusal to permit an employee to withdraw a resignation following its delivery to the appropriate appointing authority.Smith, a permanent state employee with the State Division of Equalization and Assessment, submitted his resignation for “personal reasons. [read post]
16 Apr 2007, 7:23 am
OpinionPub DateShort Title/District 07a0130p.06 2007/04/09 Smith v. [read post]
