Search for: "Vance v. Ball State Univ." Results 1 - 20 of 23
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Jun 2013, 11:21 am by Howard Wasserman
Ball State University (only those with hiring/firing authority qualify as supervisors) or Univ. of Texas Southwestern Med. [read post]
18 Sep 2017, 6:31 am
Yes, the Supreme Court already answered this question in Vance v. [read post]
4 Mar 2014, 6:45 am by Joy Waltemath
Moving for summary judgment on the Title VII claims, the employer argued that it could not be held vicariously liable for any alleged harassment by the chef because he was not a “supervisor” under Vance v Ball State Univ. [read post]
27 Jun 2013, 7:43 am by Vance Wittie
Ball State Univ. provides graphic proof that not all fights over terminology are created equal. [read post]
14 Feb 2014, 5:37 am by Joy Waltemath
And although there was no direct indication that he had authority over her hiring, firing, promotions, compensation, or benefits, the statement that he was a manager and husband to the mother of the owner was enough under Vance v Ball State Univ. [read post]
9 May 2013, 5:29 am by Jon Hyman
There are still two key employment cases pending this term—Vance v. [read post]
24 Jun 2013, 5:25 pm by Cicely Wilson
Univ. of Texas at AustinDocket: 11-345Date: June 24, 2013Read commentary & review related lower court decisions here.Justia Summary:  Since the Court’s 2003 decision, Grutter v. [read post]
27 Nov 2012, 4:39 am by Jon Hyman
Ball State Univ., which will (maybe) answer the important question of who qualifies as a supervisor under Title VII. [read post]