Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The California Supreme Court has repeatedly "interpreted the [law] as protecting classes other than those listed on its face". [6] For example, even prior to the 2005 addition of sexual orientation to the law's list of covered classes, the Unruh Act had been "construed as protecting gays and lesbians from arbitrary discrimination", [6] such as in the case of Rolon v.
Federal courts in the United States have generally ruled that gender-based dress codes do not constitute sex discrimination. Mandatory gender-based dress codes in the workplace have been referred to as a "Title VII blind spot" by Jessica Robinson, writing for the Nebraska Law Review. [3] In Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989), the US Supreme ...
The plaintiffs in the Fresno Grizzlies case are represented by a San Diego-based lawyer who reached an agreement on a $500,000 settlement from the Oakland Athletics in 2016 after he filed a class ...
Mexicali Rose v. Superior Court, 1 Cal. 4th 617 (1992), was a Supreme Court of California case in which the court’s decision held that restaurants, grocery stores, and other food service establishments in California can be held liable for injuries sustained by patrons from foreign objects—including natural food parts—that are left in food ...
The Lanham Act prohibits "the deceptive and misleading use of marks" to protect business owners "against unfair competition." [4] The Act defines trademarks as "any word, name, symbol, or device or any combination thereof" used by any person "to identify and distinguish his or her goods, including a unique product, from those manufactured or sold by others and to indicate the source of the ...
In the last decade, the two largest race discrimination cases brought by the federal government in the Golden State alleged widespread abuse of hundreds of Black employees at Inland Empire warehouses.
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
Bostock v. Clayton County –— a landmark United States Supreme Court case in 2020 in which the Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against discrimination because of their sexual orientation or gender identity; Civil Rights Act of 1866 [3] Civil Rights Act of 1871 [4] Civil Rights Act of 1957 [5]