Search for: "Universal Security Corporation v. The Department of Employment Security"
Results 1 - 20
of 228
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Jun 2018, 8:00 am
Universities and corporations that prominently challenged the ban may choose technical workarounds that allow remote employment and enrollment from within countries hostile to the ban. [read post]
30 Oct 2013, 8:00 am
Anderson Professor of Law and Values at University of Toledo College of Law Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”) enacted a protective scheme for workers terminated for blowing the whistle on corporate and securities fraud. [read post]
10 Mar 2010, 3:02 am
No. 1 Inc. v DiNapoli, 22 Misc 3d 1106(A)The Carle Place Hook, Ladder and Hose Co. [read post]
15 Aug 2021, 9:30 pm
The statutory rights of employees in the civil service of the State and its political subdivisions, however, are not universal. [read post]
15 Aug 2021, 9:30 pm
The statutory rights of employees in the civil service of the State and its political subdivisions, however, are not universal. [read post]
22 Feb 2018, 2:29 pm
Department of Homeland Security v. [read post]
14 Dec 2019, 1:55 am
Peoples Department Stores v. [read post]
16 Jan 2009, 4:15 am
No. 1 Inc. v DiNapoli, 2008 NY Slip Op 52606(U), decided on December 22, 2008, Supreme Court, Albany County [not officially reported]The Carle Place Hook, Ladder and Hose Co. [read post]
21 May 2020, 9:01 pm
Lucas and Giorgianni v. [read post]
5 Oct 2023, 9:07 pm
Labor advocates contend that Newsom’s veto benefited corporations but harmed workers because the desired unemployment benefits would require California to increase taxes on employers. [read post]
14 Apr 2010, 11:27 am
Just as organizations must develop and enforce policies in the areas of governance, employment, and safety, many companies and public agencies are now required to track and report sustainability measurements to ensure legal compliance. [read post]
11 Jun 2019, 11:17 am
Regents of the University of California, 18-587, Trump v. [read post]
5 Oct 2012, 4:00 am
Two non-employment cases with big implications for employers Fisher v. [read post]
16 Dec 2013, 6:36 am
By their terms, the HHS Rule and the underlying federal statute do not impose any obligations at all on employers, such as Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood—let alone on corporate shareholders or company administrators. [read post]
9 Sep 2015, 2:21 pm
Department of Labor Employee Benefit Security Administration (EBSA) Investigator Kristi Gotcher. [read post]
31 Aug 2018, 10:21 am
Rose v. [read post]
17 Jun 2020, 6:19 am
(See Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. [read post]
31 Aug 2011, 12:00 am
Tuesday, Oct. 4 Brad Seligman, JD, civil rights attorney specializing in class action and individual employment and civil rights litigation, will present “What Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., v. [read post]
28 Feb 2012, 6:00 am
GPC v. [read post]
24 Dec 2008, 12:01 pm
Department of Homeland Security, No. 2008-3252 (C.A.F.C. [read post]
