Finally, the brief does well to point out that the Petitioners’ arguments regarding the potential threats that ADEA enforcement would pose to the financial survival of small political subdivisions are grossly overstated
Mt. Lemmon v. Guido_US SC_AARP NELA Amicus Brief_071218.pdf
Koeltl (S.D.N.Y.), who directed the committee that developed the Protocols
The Third Branch_Employment Discovery Protocols Article_Feb 2012.pdf
This case speaks to vitally important pleading standards in ERISA cases, which have a direct impact on whether workers will be guaranteed a fair retirement after a lifetime of hard work, and whether employers and outside pension administrators will be held to the high standards required for any fiduciary
Final Amicus Brief - Bafford v. Northrop Grumman.pdf
Some of this conduct was engaged in by employees who arguably directed at least some of her day-to-day work activities
#11-556_Vance v Ball St_NELA Amicus_Final.pdf
Those exposed to Intrusive stop-and-frisk policies, threats of violence, or even harsh racial insults appear to result in a higher prevalence of PTSD, according to a study published on PubMed
Since 2008, Hearst has sought to reduce overhead and costs by eliminating paid positions and, at some magazines, directing that unpaid interns be hired
Hearst amicus FINAL.pdf
Roseman’s colleague also directed him to another student who had recounted a similar experience
JOB RESPONSIBILITIES Legislative, Regulatory & Public Policy Advocacy Developing, directing, and implementing NELA’s federal legislative, and public policy activities, including determining advocacy priorities, positions, and strategies
The bill would permit only individualized restitution and other forms of direct payment for “actual harm,” and eliminate payments to third parties
Yet Enron had virtually no direct employees, just like the Fidelity mutual funds
The precise question presented is “whether an employer can be liable under Title VII for refusing to hire an applicant… based on a ‘religious observance and practice’ only if the employer has actual knowledge that a religious accommodation was required and the employer's actual knowledge resulted from direct, explicit notice from the applicant or employee.” Put another way, the Supreme Court is asked to decide if the bar to liability is so high that an employer can be found liable for not accommodating a job applicant’s religious observance and practice only if they have actual and direct knowledge from the applicant or employee him- or herself that an accommodation is needed
The question presented is whether an employer can be liable under the religious accommodation provision of Title VII for refusing to hire an applicant or discharging an employee based on a “religious observance and practice” only if the employer has actual knowledge that a religious accommodation was required and the employer’s actual knowledge resulted from direct, explicit notice from the applicant or employee
Nassar suffered discrimination and harassment at the hands of his supervisor, resulting in his constructive discharge, and was retaliated against when he complained of the illegal treatment directed toward him. A jury returned a verdict in favor of Dr
Abercrombie-Amicus-Merits (14-12-10-final).pdf
Foreman and the Civil Rights Appellate Clinic at the Pennsylvania State University’s Dickinson School of Law, which he directs, and NELA members Jocelyn Larkin and Robert Schug at the Impact Fund
13-1019 bsac Impact Fund.pdf
Judge Bennett also directed one final thought to his colleagues on the federal bench, in the form of quote from a recent article written by Senior District Court Judge Brock Hornby (District of Maine), imploring his colleagues to “be slow to take inference questions away from juries, even when colleagues are affirmed in doing so.”
An Abercrombie district manager decided that Elauf’s headscarf, as well as any headgear, whether worn for religious reasons or not, would violate company policy and directed that Elauf not be hired
Professor Moss’ findings were troubling in many respects, as he saw evidence that in those cases where the plaintiff’s attorney failed to direct the court to helpful precedent in response to “same actor” arguments, the plaintiff was much more likely to lose at summary judgment