Search for: "Staub v. Proctor Hospital"
Results 1 - 20
of 157
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Feb 2020, 6:12 am
Proctor Hospital in this context, if the shoe fits.) [read post]
14 Sep 2016, 10:36 am
Proctor Hospital in 2011, where it found that if a biased supervisor is the proximate cause of an employee’s termination, the employer can be held liable. [read post]
8 Sep 2016, 8:41 am
Indeed, as the Court in Empress notes, the Supreme Court in Staub v. [read post]
6 Sep 2016, 12:41 pm
Proctor Hospital, 131 S. [read post]
6 Sep 2016, 12:41 pm
Proctor Hospital, 131 S. [read post]
2nd Circuit “Cat’s Paw” decision highlights importance of employer investigations before termination
6 Sep 2016, 7:00 am
Supreme Court in Staub v. [read post]
2 Sep 2016, 3:24 am
Supreme Court recognized the “cat’s paw” theory of liability for discrimination in Staub v. [read post]
3 Aug 2016, 3:51 pm
Our United States Supreme Court in a case entitled Staub v. [read post]
3 Aug 2016, 3:51 pm
Our United States Supreme Court in a case entitled Staub v. [read post]
19 Oct 2015, 7:18 am
Employment Discrimination Case – Cat’s Paw Theory In 2011, in the matter of Staub v. [read post]
19 Oct 2015, 3:00 am
Employment Discrimination Case – Cat’s Paw Theory In 2011, in the matter of Staub v. [read post]
15 Sep 2015, 9:59 am
Proctor Hospital, 562 U.S. 411 (2011), when they cannot show that the decision maker – the person who took the adverse employment action – harbored any discriminatory animus. [read post]
23 Aug 2015, 3:36 pm
Proctor Hospital made clear that the cat’s paw analysis remains viable in the but-for causation context. [read post]
28 Jan 2015, 7:21 am
Proctor Hospital. [read post]
6 Jan 2015, 2:53 pm
Supreme Court, in Staub v. [read post]
31 Oct 2014, 5:18 am
I guess they were waiting for the Supreme Court to issue its opinion in Staub v. [read post]
31 Oct 2014, 4:36 am
Proctor Hospital. [read post]
30 Oct 2014, 7:34 am
Proctor Hospital. [read post]
6 Nov 2013, 6:53 am
His additional “cat’s paw” claim was also unfounded, the Tenth Circuit held, rejecting the notion that the Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in Staub v Proctor Hospital established a categorical rule that, if a biased supervisor’s animus leads in any way to an adverse job action, an employer is liable. [read post]
9 May 2013, 5:29 am
Proctor Hospital — The cat’s paw: holding employers liable for the discriminatory animus of non-decision-makers Kasten v. [read post]