Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The case was brought by Marlean Ames, a straight woman who alleged that the Ohio Department of Youth Services discriminated against her on the basis of sexual orientation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. [3] She had worked in the department since 2004. In 2017, Ames was reassigned to a new supervisor, who was a lesbian ...
Given the Federal Circuit's holding that a claim for compensation under 10 U. S. C. §1413a is a claim "involving ... retired pay" under 31 U. S. C. §3702(a)(l)(A), does 10 U. S. C. §1413a provide a settlement mechanism that displaces the default procedures and limitations set forth in the Barring Act? January 17, 2025: Stanley v. City of Sanford
Total settlement: $60 million. Deadline to file claim: May 18, 2023. Requirements: Must have been an unlimited data customer between Oct. 1, 2011 and June 30, 2015.
This is a list of recognized content, updated weekly by JL-Bot (talk · contribs) (typically on Saturdays).There is no need to edit the list yourself. If an article is missing from the list, make sure it is tagged (e.g. {{WikiProject Law}}) or categorized correctly and wait for the next update.
Cash App customers may be able to claim more than $2,500 each as part of a $15 million class-action settlement for data and security breaches at the mobile payment service.
Supreme Court of the United States 38°53′26″N 77°00′16″W / 38.89056°N 77.00444°W / 38.89056; -77.00444 Established March 4, 1789 ; 235 years ago (1789-03-04) Location Washington, D.C. Coordinates 38°53′26″N 77°00′16″W / 38.89056°N 77.00444°W / 38.89056; -77.00444 Composition method Presidential nomination with Senate confirmation Authorised by ...
Cash App users have less than 24 hours to file a claim to get some cash from a $15 million settlement.. If their Cash App account was a part of a December 2021 data and security breach, users of ...
The following partial list contains marks which were originally legally protected trademarks, but which have subsequently lost legal protection as trademarks by becoming the common name of the relevant product or service, as used both by the consuming public and commercial competitors. These marks were determined in court to have become generic.