holding that "interference with students' learning need not be undertaken because it constitutes 'undue hardship' for the employer"
Summary of this case from Kluge v. Brownsburg Cmty. Sch. Corp.No. 97-7397.
November 10, 1997.
Appeal from the S.D.N.Y.
Affirmed.
holding that "interference with students' learning need not be undertaken because it constitutes 'undue hardship' for the employer"
Summary of this case from Kluge v. Brownsburg Cmty. Sch. Corp.dismissing appeal based on parties' agreement that their dispute about application of Boren requirements was mooted as of the effective date of the Boren Amendment's repeal
Summary of this case from Florida Assoc. Rehab. v. State of Floridanoting burden on the appellant to provide "an acceptable alternative means of securing the judgment"
Summary of this case from PERLES v. KAGYFull title:K. Bell Associates, Inc. v. Lloyd's Underwriters
Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Date published: Nov 10, 1997
See Gyadu v. Chairman, Workers' Compensation Comm'n, No. 122258, 1994 WL 711199 (Conn.Super.Ct. Dec.9, 1994).…
WIDJAJA v. KANG YUE USA CORPORATIONImposing this duty on defendants is reasonable, as the employer is obviously in the best position to know the…