Search for: "State v. Waiters"
Results 81 - 100
of 118
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Sep 2007, 2:01 pm
The most recent court decision to interpret this provision, White v. [read post]
2 Jan 2015, 3:15 pm
In Schaefer v. [read post]
4 Sep 2009, 10:37 am
In Pietrylo v. [read post]
22 Jun 2023, 11:26 am
The appeals court pointed out it had previously rejected a similar res judicata in Muma v. [read post]
22 Jul 2016, 8:48 am
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit served up some welcome relief for employers in Schaefer v. [read post]
12 May 2013, 6:05 am
Jonathan V. [read post]
26 Jun 2011, 7:55 pm
This indicates there is a contract, thus Georgia law states there is. [read post]
26 Jun 2011, 7:55 pm
This indicates there is a contract, thus Georgia law states there is. [read post]
18 Nov 2019, 5:05 am
In some cases, paid line waiters would save several spaces. [read post]
14 Oct 2019, 6:00 am
The Supreme Court’s decision in Minnesota v. [read post]
9 Aug 2022, 5:01 am
Pa. 1989) (perception by employer that male waiters "present a better image" for the restaurant cannot make sex into a bona fide qualification), rev'd on other grounds, 909 F.2d 747 (3d Cir. 1990); Bollenbach v. [read post]
9 Aug 2022, 5:01 am
Pa. 1989) (perception by employer that male waiters "present a better image" for the restaurant cannot make sex into a bona fide qualification), rev'd on other grounds, 909 F.2d 747 (3d Cir. 1990); Bollenbach v. [read post]
12 Mar 2009, 1:35 pm
The Court recognized that this holding contradicts the previous state court holding in Lu v. [read post]
21 Mar 2018, 1:39 pm
Justice Samuel Alito delivers a summary of his opinion in Ayestas v. [read post]
6 Dec 2017, 6:15 am
And most recently, in Marlow v. [read post]
28 Apr 2023, 4:54 pm
In Etheridge v. [read post]
23 Feb 2024, 4:58 pm
In Etheridge v. [read post]
21 Jun 2012, 10:47 am
Sandifer v. [read post]
25 Mar 2013, 6:00 pm
When the waiter rattles of the non-menu specials, they should include the price. [read post]
10 Apr 2018, 11:39 am
On the one hand, a 2009 decision by the California Court of Appeal in Etheridge v. [read post]
