TITLE

WHILE WE'RE AT IT

AUTHOR(S)
Neuhaus, Richard John
PUB. DATE
December 1996
SOURCE
First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion & Public Life;Dec1996, Issue 68, p58
SOURCE TYPE
Periodical
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
Reports on the ruling of the California Supreme Court on an illegal discrimination case filed against landlord Evelyn S. Smith in California. Amount fined to Smith; Actions to be taken by Smith regarding her business that were ordered by the court.
ACCESSION #
17753771

 

Related Articles

  • California Workers Win on Back Pay. Tran, Khanh T. L. // WWD: Women's Wear Daily;4/19/2007, Vol. 193 Issue 83, p16 

    This article focuses on the lawsuit filed by a former store manager against Kenneth Cole Productions Inc. wherein the California Supreme Court clarified whether employers had to pay a wage or a penalty. In determining employers must pay a wage, the decision reversed a judgment by the California...

  • CALIFORNIA COUPLES CELEBRATE MARRIAGE EQUALITY. Penn, Denise // Lesbian News;Jun2008, Vol. 33 Issue 11, p8 

    The article reports on the decision of the California Supreme Court to struck down the ban on same-sex marriage on May 15, 2008, invalidating discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation when it comes to marriage. It mentions some of the cases filed against the state which challenged the...

  • California Supreme Court Rejects Personal Liability for Supervisors in FEHA Retaliation Cases.  // Venulex Legal Summaries;2008 Q2, Special section p1 

    The article discusses the court case Jones v. The Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership wherein the California Supreme Court rejected personal liability for supervisors in Fair Employment & Housing Act (FEHA) retaliation cases. The plaintiff filed the lawsuit alleging sexual orientation...

  • California Supreme Court: Voluntary Administrative Proceedings Toll Limitations Period under FEHA.  // Venulex Legal Summaries;2008 Q4, Special section p1 

    The article discusses a court case wherein the plaintiff's claims on statute of limitations under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) were incorrectly dismissed by the trial court. The California Supreme Court ordered for the return of the case to the trial court for further...

  • Calif. court rules in favor of PEX piping. DeRosa, Angie // Plastics News;12/23/2002, Vol. 14 Issue 43, p1 

    Focuses on a decision of Superior Court of Los Angeles, California in which they have overturned ruling restrictions on PEX pipe and permits to use cross-linked polyethylene pipes. State agencies involved in the court case; Environmental concerns raised by state's Building Standards Commission.

  • California Supreme Court decision opens new avenue for sexual harassment lawsuits. Ceniceros, Roberto // Business Insurance;7/25/2005, Vol. 39 Issue 30, p3 

    Reports on the ruling of the California Supreme Court that permits employees to sue for workplace sexual favoritism. Possible violation of employers in monitoring or investigating workplace relationships; Application of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission policy statement on employer...

  • Penalty clauses -- how to spot them and how to avoid them.  // Lawyer (Online Edition);2/15/2013, p1 

    The article reports on the concerns over the High Court decision that requires any party hoping to rely on forfeiture clauses to ensure that they do not constitute unenforceable penalties in Great Britain.

  • PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION CLAIM REJECTED ...  // Workforce Management;Apr2013, Vol. 92 Issue 4, p14 

    The article focuses on a California Supreme Court Case filed by Wynona Harris, a bus driver who alleged pregnancy discrimination against the city of Santa Monica, California after she was fired which she alleges is in violation of California's Fair Employment and Housing Act.

  • California Supreme Court Decision Clarifies Standard for Defending FEHA Claims.  // San Diego Business Journal;2/18/2013, Vol. 34 Issue 7, p22 

    The article reports on the decision of California Supreme Court on the issue of whether the mixed-motive cases apply to employment discrimination claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of VIRGINIA BEACH PUBLIC LIBRARY AND SYSTEM

Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics