英文字典中文字典


英文字典中文字典51ZiDian.com



中文字典辞典   英文字典 a   b   c   d   e   f   g   h   i   j   k   l   m   n   o   p   q   r   s   t   u   v   w   x   y   z       







请输入英文单字，中文词皆可：


请选择你想看的字典辞典：
单词字典翻译
knub查看　knub　在百度字典中的解释百度英翻中〔查看〕
knub查看　knub　在Google字典中的解释Google英翻中〔查看〕
knub查看　knub　在Yahoo字典中的解释Yahoo英翻中〔查看〕

安装中文字典英文字典查询工具!


中文字典英文字典工具:
选择颜色:
输入中英文单字

































































英文字典中文字典相关资料:


  • Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U. S. 742 (1998)
    Respondent Kimberly Ellerth quit her job after 15 months as a salesperson in one of petitioner Burlington Industries' many divisions, allegedly because she had been subjected to constant sexual harassment by one of her supervisors, Ted Slowik
  • U. S. Reports: Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U. S. 742 (1998).
    U S Reports: Burlington Industries, Inc v Ellerth, 524 U S 742 (1998) More about For guidance about compiling full citations consult Citations are generated automatically from bibliographic data as a convenience, and may not be complete or accurate
  • Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth - Wikipedia
    Burlington Industries, Inc v Ellerth, 524 U S 742 (1998), is a landmark employment law case of the United States Supreme Court holding that employers are liable if supervisors create a hostile work environment for employees [1]
  • {{meta. fullTitle}} - Oyez
    Can an employee, who despite refusing sexually harassing advances by a supervisor suffers no adverse job-related consequences, recover against an employer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, without showing that the employer was responsible for the supervisor's harassing conduct? Yes
  • Employment Discrimination : Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth | H2O
    We decide whether, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat 253, as amended, 42 U S C § 2000e et seq , an employee who refuses the unwelcome and threatening sexual advances of a supervisor, yet suffers no adverse, tangible job consequences, can recover against the employer without showing the employer is negligent or otherwis
  • BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. , Petitioner, v. Kimberly B. ELLERTH.
    524 U S 742 118 S Ct 2257 141 L Ed 2d 633 BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC , Petitioner, v Kimberly B ELLERTH No 97-569 Supreme Court of the United States Argued April 22, 1998 Decided June 26, 1998
  • Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth,524 U. S. 742 (1998) | Law School . . .
    Burlington Industries, Inc v Ellerth,524 U S 742 (1998) - contains nature of case, facts, issues, Rule of Law, Holding Decision and Legal Analysis of CaseBreifs Best summary by Casebriefsco experts
  • BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. v. KIMBERLY B. ELLERTH (1998)
    Citation: 524 U S 742; How the court took jurisdiction: Cert; What type of decision was made: Opinion of the court (orally argued) Who was the chief justice: William Rehnquist; Who wrote the majority opinion: Anthony Kennedy
  • BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. v. ELLERTH - Justia US Supreme Court Center
    Cite as: 524 U S 742 (1998) 743 Syllabus “discriminat[ion] against any individual with respect to his terms [or] conditions of employment, because of sex ” §2000e–2(a)(1) In Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v Vinson, 477 U S 57, 65, this Court distinguished between the two concepts, saying both are cognizable
  • Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U. S. 742 (1998)
    Summary judgment was granted for the employer, so we must take the facts alleged by the employee to be true United States v Diebold, Inc 369 U S 654, 655 (1962) (per curiam) The employer is Burlington Industries, the petitioner The employee is Kimberly Ellerth, the respondent





中文字典-英文字典  2005-2009