Search for: "Steele v. Employment Dept."
Results 1 - 20
of 32
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Oct 2009, 11:08 am
Co. v. [read post]
23 Jun 2016, 9:10 am
Steele v. [read post]
16 Feb 2011, 4:15 am
Exception to the exclusion of a “pre-reporting for work accident” for the purposes of receiving workers’ compensation benefitsMatter of O'Neil v City of Albany Police Dept., 2011 NY Slip Op 00759, Appellate Division, Third DepartmentIn general, accidents that occur outside of work hours and in public areas away from the workplace are not compensable. [read post]
7 Dec 2017, 4:31 am
In James Madison Project v. [read post]
9 Aug 2011, 12:15 am
Student note: Dispositive for dismissal was the fact that, at the time of his injury, plaintiff was engaged in the fabrication and loading of steel at his employer's Bronx facility, not in performing construction work at the construction site in Queens.Case: Flores v. [read post]
7 Oct 2013, 6:44 am
Citing New Process Steel, LP v NLRB, which holds that the Board cannot act without a quorum of three members, the D.C. [read post]
11 Aug 2021, 4:00 am
" However, said the Commissioner, the "does not affect my conclusion that petitioners’ claims here — such as the disparate impact of hiring practices like “word of mouth” referrals – are more appropriately resolved by a fair employment practice agency or a court of competent jurisdiction," citing Grant v Bethlehem Steel Corp., 635 F2d 1007. [read post]
11 Aug 2021, 4:00 am
" However, said the Commissioner, the "does not affect my conclusion that petitioners’ claims here — such as the disparate impact of hiring practices like “word of mouth” referrals – are more appropriately resolved by a fair employment practice agency or a court of competent jurisdiction," citing Grant v Bethlehem Steel Corp., 635 F2d 1007. [read post]
7 May 2013, 4:46 am
On appeal, in Williams v. [read post]
24 Apr 2009, 3:47 am
"o o April 1, 2009 decision hereo o SCOTUS docket hereo o SCOTUSwiki hereo o Noted here: Baker Hostetler; Colorado Employment Law Blog; ConstangyArgued - Awaiting DecisionAT&T v. [read post]
17 Mar 2019, 12:47 pm
In Flowers v. [read post]
18 Apr 2012, 6:00 am
Nat’l Steel & Shipbuilding Co. v. [read post]
18 Apr 2012, 6:00 am
Dept. of Labor, OWCP, 606 F.2d 875, 882 (9th Cir. 1979). [read post]
29 Jul 2022, 4:10 am
The evidence established, prima facie, that the underlying accident was related to a risk shared by the general public, as opposed to a special hazard connected to the plaintiff’s employment (see Matter of Husted v Seneca Steel Serv., 41 NY2d 140, 144; Matter of Johnson v New York City Tr. [read post]
20 Jan 2015, 10:14 am
In EEOC v. [read post]
20 Jan 2019, 11:43 pm
See United States v. [read post]
13 Jan 2022, 1:16 pm
At the core of these principles is an important new one, though one that waits for greater elaboration elsewhere--the need for reasoned decision making subject to broad review by the courts (e.g., Dept of Commerce v, NY, No. 18–966. [read post]
20 May 2019, 9:18 am
The employer was the Bethlehem Steel Company, at the Bethlehem Steel Sparrows Point Shipyard. [read post]
4 Dec 2011, 1:18 am
H&L Holding Corp. (1st Dept. 2007) - $10,000,000 ($5,000,000 past - 3 1/2 years, $5,000,000 future - 35 years) for a 45 year old man whose torso was impaled on a steel bar that severed his spinal cord and left him with complete paralysis and neurological dysfunction at and below the L-2 level Ruby v. [read post]
