Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Court held that while Title VII applies a mixed motive discrimination framework to claims of discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2), that framework did not apply to claims of retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3. The Court reasoned that based on its decision in Gross v.
The Supreme Court appeared sharply divided Tuesday in the case of a former commercial truck driver who was fired after a failed drug test he said was caused by a “CBD-rich medicine.”
The Court explained that the defendant's burden was merely an intermediate evidentiary burden requiring the defendant to sustain only the burden of production, never the burden of persuasion. [5] The burden of proof, therefore, never actually shifted from the plaintiff to the defendant but remained with the plaintiff. [ 6 ]
Supreme Court precedents have long protected access by adults to non-obscene sexual content on First Amendment grounds, including a 2004 ruling that blocked a federal law similar to the Texas measure.
The Texas Supreme Court said a medical exemption in the state’s abortion ban applies only when a person is at risk of death or serious physical impairment, ruling Friday against women who sued ...
Concerning headwright certificates issued to families residing in Texas on the date independence was declared. [1] Herbert v. Moore, Dallam 592 (1844). Determined that Indians were not sovereign nations, the rule of postliminy did not apply to property taken by Indians. Republic v. Inglish, Dallam 608 (1844). To obtain a land grant, it must be ...
The post Supreme Court makes it easier to sue for job discrimination over forced transfers appeared first on TheGrio. Lawyer for St. Louis police sergeant hailed unanimous Supreme Court decision ...
Texas, 601 U.S. 285 (2024), was a case that the Supreme Court of the United States decided on April 16, 2024. [ 1 ] [ 2 ] The case dealt with the Supreme Court's takings clause jurisprudence . Because the case touched on whether or not the 5th Amendment is self-executing, the case had implications for Trump v.