Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Brief For Respondents. Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. V. Busk, 135 S.Ct. 513 (2014) (No. 13-433), 2014 Wl 3866627, Mark R. Thierman, Joshua D. Buck, Eric Schnapper
Brief For Respondents. Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. V. Busk, 135 S.Ct. 513 (2014) (No. 13-433), 2014 Wl 3866627, Mark R. Thierman, Joshua D. Buck, Eric Schnapper
Court Briefs
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
(1) Does the time an hourly employee spends participating in an employer-mandated anti-theft search constitute "work" within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act?
(2) If such a search occurs at the end of the workday, is the employee’s time nonetheless non-compensable as a postliminary activity under the Portal-to-Portal Act?
Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Debord V. Mercy Health System Of Kansas, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2664 (2014) (No. 13-1118), 2014 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 1120, Eric Schnapper, Mark A. Buchanan
Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Debord V. Mercy Health System Of Kansas, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2664 (2014) (No. 13-1118), 2014 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 1120, Eric Schnapper, Mark A. Buchanan
Court Briefs
QUESTION PRESENTED
Section 704(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids an employer to retaliate against any employee because that worker "opposed" unlawful discrimination.
The question presented is:
Does section 704(a) prohibit retaliation against a worker because of the worker's statements:
(1) only when the statements are made to the worker's own employer or to federal or state anti-discrimination agencies (the rule in the Tenth and Fourth Circuits), or (2) also when the worker's statements are made to any other person (the rule in the First, Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth and Ninth Circuits)?