Search for: "State v. Grooms"
Results 141 - 160
of 449
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 May 2021, 8:58 am
Its Compliance Manual states both that discrimination based on cultural dress and grooming practices is race discrimination, but also that grooming policies are not discriminatory so long as they do not discriminate on the basis of hair texture, and are applied neutrally to all employees, citing Rogers v. [read post]
7 Feb 2010, 12:00 pm
In Newingham v. [read post]
6 Jan 2013, 9:12 am
Ct. 2012); and Iseberg v. [read post]
6 Jan 2013, 9:12 am
Ct. 2012); and Iseberg v. [read post]
6 Jan 2013, 9:12 am
Ct. 2012); and Iseberg v. [read post]
17 Oct 2012, 4:03 am
Swidas and State v. [read post]
15 Nov 2009, 6:00 am
In Rust v. [read post]
6 Oct 2010, 4:25 am
The court held that double-celling plaintiff with a Muslim cell mate did not amount to state action in violation of 1st Amendment rights.In Johnson v. [read post]
20 Dec 2009, 2:35 pm
State of Florida, 2009 U.S. [read post]
6 Dec 2016, 1:15 pm
In State v. [read post]
6 Dec 2016, 1:15 pm
In State v. [read post]
2 Apr 2014, 11:08 am
The employer moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. [read post]
8 Apr 2007, 6:58 pm
On March 28, the Southern District of Texas granted a preliminary injunction in Pet Silk, Inc. v. [read post]
15 May 2019, 9:32 am
Additional Resources: Normandin v. [read post]
2 Mar 2010, 3:40 pm
Obaidi v. [read post]
4 Apr 2010, 9:07 am
LEXIS 26385, Feb. 16, 2010) and dismissed a claim by a Sunni Muslim prisoner that his rights under RLUIPA were violated by prison grooming polices that required him to wear short hear and be clean shaven.In Ingram v. [read post]
27 Dec 2022, 4:00 am
Kingston v. [read post]
6 Jan 2013, 3:12 pm
Ct. 2012); and Iseberg v. [read post]
15 Jan 2007, 12:19 pm
We explore the marketing of branded service and the law's response through an analysis of Jespersen v. [read post]
28 Jan 2008, 5:11 pm
As stated in [Hayes v. [read post]
