Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that: . certain public-sector employees can have a property interest in their employment, per Constitutional Due Process.
Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur , 414 U.S. 632 (1974), found that overly restrictive maternity leave regulations in public schools violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment .
The term stems from Loudermill v.Cleveland Board of Education, in which the United States Supreme Court held that non-probationary civil servants had a property right to continued employment and such employment could not be denied to employees unless they were given an opportunity to hear and respond to the charges against them prior to being deprived of continued employment.
Foreign-language education and discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur: 414 U.S. 632 (1974) Overly restrictive maternity leave regulations in public schools violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment Schlesinger v. Holtzman: 414 U.S. 1316 (1973) Presidential war power United ...
Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur; Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill; Cleveland Terminal and Valley R. Co. v. Cleveland S. S. Co. Cleveland v. United States (1946) Cleveland v. United States (2000) Clinton v. City of New York; Clinton v. Jones; Coates v. City of Cincinnati; Cochrane v. Deener; Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast ...
This is the second in a two-part candidate question and response series from all 16 candidates running for Cleveland County Board of Education. During the March 5 primary election, registered ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002), was a 5–4 decision of the United States Supreme Court that upheld an Ohio program that used school vouchers.The Court decided that the program did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as long as parents using the program were allowed to choose among a range of secular and religious schools.