Sentences with phrase «against former employees as»

The high court will also use an employment - discrimination case from the private sector to clarify whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the main federal job - discrimination law, covers retaliation by employers against former employees as well as job applicants...

Not exact matches

«Uber's lack of security regarding its customer data was resulting in Uber employees being able to track high profile politicians, celebrities, and even personal acquaintances of Uber employees, including ex - boyfriends / girlfriends, and ex-spouses,» Uber's former forensic investigator Ward Spangenberg was quoted as saying under penalty of perjury in filings from a lawsuit is pursuing against the company.

Employment practices liability insurance, or EPLI as you may have heard it called, provides protection to companies who have employees against claims by current or former employees for things like discrimination, wrongful termination, or sexual harassment.

He also has on - the - record quotes from former AMI employees talking about how the company would purchase stories in order to kill them and buy the silence of the person behind them — a practice known as «catch and kill» — or to use as leverage against celebrities.

In his public letter, he cited the charges that had been brought against him by former employees, the divisive nature of his leadership style, and the health of his family as reasons for stepping down.

The former refers to where an employee is discriminated against as a direct consequence of their religion or belief, and the latter is where an employee is discriminated against not due to their specific religion or belief but because more general rules put someone of their religion or belief at a disadvantage.

Washington (CNN)-- The Republican National Committee has cancelled a fundraiser with conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart, who is under fire for promoting an edited video that falsely portrays former Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod as having boasted about discriminating against a white farmer looking for her assistance.

Apex Construct is an action - adventure title developed exclusively for the PSVR by Fast Travel Games, a team which boasts former DICE employees amongst its ranks; dropping the player into a desolate world presided over by a sadistic omnipresent A.I known only as Mothr, Apex Construct pits you against mechanical monstrosities that can only be brought down through use of what is probably the most satisfying and accurate representation of a bow and arrow in VR gaming to date.

While Johnson's character is the brawn leading the fight against the unleashed beasts, Harris» Caldwell provides the brains — a former employee of the Wydens who has inside knowledge of their dealing as well as having her own personal invested interest in bringing the siblings down.

No employees, former employees, or applicants for employment can be discriminated against due to their protected class such as: race, color, national origin, sex, (gender, pregnancy, sexual harassment, sexual orientation, gender identity or transgender status), religion, age (40 and over), disability (mental / physical), equal pay compensation, genetic information and retaliation (see the NO FEAR ACT).

Two points: 1) An update on the Lamar Smith affair (which I continue to regard as a politically motivated witchhunt): «About 600 scientists and engineers, including former employees of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), have signed on to letters urging the head of that agency, Kathryn Sullivan, to push back against political interference in science.

What happened here, though, is that York later (at least as far as York's version goes) discovered the alleged fraud and started a claim against the former employee.

Participated as lead counsel in the successful resolution of a breach of contract action against a former employee for misappropriation of confidential information

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), which protects men and women who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from sex - based wage discrimination; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older; Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended (ADA), which prohibit employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the private sector, and in state and local governments; Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibit discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities who work in the federal government; Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), which prohibits employment discrimination based on genetic information about an applicant, employee, or former employee; and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which, among other things, provides monetary damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination.

As part of his practice, Mr. Avraam has represented employers whose employees and former employees have engaged in significant misconduct, including committing fraud against their employers, as well misappropriating the employers confidential information or otherwise breaching their fiduciary dutieAs part of his practice, Mr. Avraam has represented employers whose employees and former employees have engaged in significant misconduct, including committing fraud against their employers, as well misappropriating the employers confidential information or otherwise breaching their fiduciary dutieas well misappropriating the employers confidential information or otherwise breaching their fiduciary duties.

As recently demonstrated by the pending Greek prosecution of former Johnson & Johnson employees, which includes the prosecution of one individual, Robert Dougall, notwithstanding his 2010 prosecution by the SFO and conviction and sentence, [13] no settlement can confer an absolute guarantee against further proceedings in any jurisdiction — particularly not in jurisdictions where there is no limitation period for criminal offences (as in the United Kingdom, other than for summary offencesAs recently demonstrated by the pending Greek prosecution of former Johnson & Johnson employees, which includes the prosecution of one individual, Robert Dougall, notwithstanding his 2010 prosecution by the SFO and conviction and sentence, [13] no settlement can confer an absolute guarantee against further proceedings in any jurisdiction — particularly not in jurisdictions where there is no limitation period for criminal offences (as in the United Kingdom, other than for summary offencesas in the United Kingdom, other than for summary offences).

In dismissing the application, the court noted its displeasure with the former employee's continued allegations of fraud as well as the unfounded allegations of bias against the adjudicator:

The decision by Mr. Justice Teare empowers lawyers for broker TFS Derivatives to use the social networking site to track down former employee Fabio de Biase as part of a suit brought against the company by investment manager AKO Capital.

The duty to «act reasonably», in seeking and accepting alternate employment, can not be a duty to take such steps as will reduce the claim against the defaulting former employer, but must be a duty to take such steps as a reasonable person in the dismissed employee's position would take in his own interests — to maintain his income and his position in his industry, trade or profession.

Under Maine law, an employer has a qualified privilege against a defamation claim by a former employee, meaning as long as the employer is truthful and does not act maliciously, it is immune from liability.

Defendant sends out tens of millions of emails each day worldwide; nobody can be completely clean 100 % of the time. Obviously, Defendant doesn't oversee their employees very well, or there wouldn't be so many lawsuits against them. Defendant's own employees are suing them. However, I don't think Defendant as a company would have done or mandated this; rogue employees of the Defendant would have though. Defendant is responsible for their employees actions if they are acting on the company's behalf. Plaintiff can easily find existing or former employees of Defendant to see if this was standard practice, or not. I bet they can!