Search for: "State v. Grooms"
Results 181 - 200
of 441
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Jul 2016, 9:44 am
In general, it requires reasonable accommodation of employees’ religious grooming and practices, unless accommodation would impose an “undue hardship. [read post]
3 Jul 2016, 11:01 am
The court recommended dismissal of his complaint regarding occasional denial of food to break the fast during Ramadan, and his claim that denial of call outs was in retaliation for not complying with the prison grooming policy.In Holland v. [read post]
24 Jun 2016, 2:13 pm
Instead, Kennedy makes clear that Grutter v. [read post]
8 Jun 2016, 10:51 am
Following the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in EEOC v. [read post]
23 May 2016, 9:01 pm
In an early case, Willingham v. [read post]
22 May 2016, 8:47 am
In Hickey v. [read post]
19 May 2016, 8:15 am
Moreover, the EEOC enforcement guidance states that expert testimony about substantial limitations is not required. [read post]
15 May 2016, 5:50 am
Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in EEOC v. [read post]
9 May 2016, 6:46 am
Thompson (Prisoners – Grooming Policies) on May 2, 2016. [read post]
4 May 2016, 3:36 pm
Thompson (Prisoners – Grooming Policies) on May 2, 2016. [read post]
4 May 2016, 3:10 pm
Thompson (Prisoners - Grooming Policies) on May 2, 2016. [read post]
3 May 2016, 1:56 pm
Drilled into our collective heads since Simeone v. [read post]
2 May 2016, 9:02 pm
As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in United States v. [read post]
18 Apr 2016, 1:40 pm
New York State Bd. [read post]
14 Apr 2016, 8:41 am
Petitioners also state that separate "insurance cards" are necessary. [read post]
17 Mar 2016, 11:05 am
Supreme Court settled the issue as to whether an accommodation needs to be specifically requested by holding in EEOC v. [read post]
15 Mar 2016, 10:08 am
State that confidentiality will be kept by the employer to the extent possible. [read post]
14 Mar 2016, 10:33 am
Legal Standard to Establish Unlawful Discrimination The amended regulations also update the legal standard to establish unlawful discrimination to conform with the California Supreme Court’s decision in Harris v. [read post]
6 Mar 2016, 8:29 am
Plaintiff was however allowed to proceed on his First Amendment and state law challenges to these practices and his RLUIPA challenge to the grooming policy.In Shaw v. [read post]
