enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Federation_of_the...

    National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corporation, 452 F. Supp. 2d 946 (N.D. Cal. 2006), was a class action lawsuit in the United States that was filed on February 7, 2006, in the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda, and subsequently moved to federal court (the district court for the northern district of California). [1]

  3. Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Express_Corp._v...

    The Court accepted the EEOC’s test for determining whether a filing constituted a charge as set forth in its amicus curiae brief as well as internal directives, and decided: “In addition to the information required by the regulations, i.e., an allegation and the name of the charged party, if a filing is to be deemed a charge it must be ...

  4. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. Equal ...

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosanna-Tabor_Evangelical...

    Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 565 U.S. 171 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously ruled that federal discrimination laws do not apply to religious organizations' selection of religious leaders.

  5. List of class-action lawsuits - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_class-action_lawsuits

    Social Security regulation on determining disability for children: Supreme Court of the United States: 1990 Swift v. Zynga: misleading advertising: United States District Court for the Northern District of California: TNA Entertainment, LLC v. Wittenstein and World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. use of secret contact information to steal talent ...

  6. List of United States Supreme Court cases involving mental ...

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States...

    Ultimately, Young instituted a federal habeas action. The court determined that the Community Protection Act was civil and, therefore, it could not violate the double jeopardy and ex post facto guarantees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the case turned on whether the Act was punitive "as applied" to Young. [5] 5th

  7. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment ...

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.G._&_G.R._Harris_Funeral...

    The case was heard on October 8, 2019, alongside two other cases, Bostock v. Clayton County and Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda which dealt with Title VII protection related to sexual orientation. The Court ruled in a 6–3 decision under Bostock but covering all three cases on June 15, 2020, that Title VII protection extends to gay and ...

  8. AOL Mail for Verizon Customers - AOL Help

    help.aol.com/products/aol-mail-verizon

    AOL Mail welcomes Verizon customers to our safe and delightful email experience!

  9. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_Discrimination_in...

    employers may enforce waivers of age discrimination claims made without EEOC or court approval if the waiver is "knowing or voluntary"; [16] valid arbitration agreements between employers and employees covering the dispute are subject to compulsory arbitration and no court action can be brought; [17]