Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Did you mean OSHA or employee and safety?

Your query osha or (employee and safety) returned 11 results.

	SKINNER V. RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION [Opinion]
	FARAGHER V. CITY OF BOCA RATON [Opinion]
	ADAIR V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW V. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC. [Opinion]
	INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW V. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC. [Concurrence]
	LOCHNER V. NEW YORK [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. PARADISE [Opinion]
	SKINNER V. RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION [Syllabus]
	HUDSON V. PALMER [Opinion]
	GADE V. NATIONAL SOLID WASTES MGMT. ASS'N, 505 U.S. 88 (1992). [Syllabus]
	ADKINS V. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL [Opinion]
	LOCHNER V. NEW YORK [Dissent]
	HOUSTON EAST AND WEST TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANY V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	RUTAN V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS [Dissent]
	SKINNER V. RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION [Dissent]
	ADAIR V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	EASTERN ASSOCIATED COAL CORP. V. MINE WORKERS [Syllabus] 1. Whether, as the First, Third, Fifth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits have held, there is a well defined and dominant public policy that prohibits enforcement of arbitration awards requiring reinstatement to safety sensitive positions of employees who test positive for illegal drugs, or whether, as the Second, Ninth, Tenth, and now Fourth Circuits have held, no such policy exists and courts must therefore uphold reinstatement to safety sensitive positions of those who test positive for illegal drugs. 2. Whether, as the Fourth, Ninth, and District of Columbia have held, an arbitration award should be vacated on public policy grounds only when the award itself violates positive law or requires unlawful conduct by the employer, or whether, as the First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits have held, such an award need not violate positive law to violate public policy---a question on which the Court granted certiorari, but did not reach, in United Paperwork's International Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29 (1987)."
	MARYLAND V. WIRTZ [Opinion]
	NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP. [Opinion]
	MICHIGAN DEP'T OF STATE POLICE V. SITZ [Dissent]
	NORFOLK & WESTERN RAILWAY CO. V. HILES, 516 U.S. 400 (1996). [Syllabus]
	WILSON V. NEW [Dissent]
	COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES V. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BD. NO. 12 [Opinion]
	A. L. A. SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP. V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	AUTOMOBILE WORKERS V. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., 499 US.187 (1991) [Syllabus]
	INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW V. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC. [Syllabus]
	JOHNSON V. TRANSPORTATION AGENCY [Opinion]
	SHERBERT V. VERNER [Opinion]
	WILSON V. NEW [Opinion]
	NORTHERN PIPELINE CONSTR. CO. V. MARATHON PIPE LINE CO. [Opinion]
	BUCKLEY V. VALEO [Opinion]
	POWELL V. MCCORMACK [Opinion]
	MORRISON V. OLSON [Dissent]
	WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V. PARRISH [Opinion]
	CHEVRON U.S. A. INC. V. ECHAZABAL [Syllabus] The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 permits an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulation authorizing an employer to refuse to hire a disabled individual because his performance on the job would endanger his own health.
	RENO V. CONDON [Opinion]
	HUDSON V. PALMER [Syllabus]
	NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES V. USERY [Opinion]
	ONCALE V. SUNDOWNER OFFSHORE SERVICES, INC. [Opinion]
	BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS V. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE R. CO.,, 516 U.S. 152 (1996) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. DARBY [Opinion]
	NIXON V. FITZGERALD [Dissent]
	GARCIA V. SAN ANTONIO TRANSIT AUTHORITY [Opinion]
	SUTTON V. UNITED AIR LINES [Dissent]
	ALBERTSONS, INC. V. KIRKINGBURG [Syllabus]
	WILKIE V. ROBBINS [Syllabus]
	VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY V. VIRGINIA CITIZENS CONSUMER COUNCIL, INC. [Opinion]
	INS V. CHADHA [Dissent]
	DOE V. BOLTON [Opinion]
	RUST V. SULLIVAN [Dissent]
	MORRISON V. OLSON [Opinion]
	ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS, INC. V. PENA [Opinion]
	NEAR V. MINNESOTA [Opinion]
	BOB JONES UNIV. V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	MCDANIEL V. PATY [Concurrence]
	NEAR V. MINNESOTA [Dissent]
	JOHNSON V. ROBISON [Opinion]
	CHICAGO V. MORALES [Dissent]
	WATKINS V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ [Concurrence]
	HAMPTON V. MOW SUN WONG [Dissent]
	CENTRAL HUDSON GAS & ELEC. CORP. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N [Dissent]
	NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES V. USERY [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ [Dissent]
	STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE [Opinion]
	GOSS V. LOPEZ [Dissent]
	ADAMSON V. CALIFORNIA [Dissent]
	TRUAX V. RAICH [Opinion]
	DE BUONO . V. NYSA-ILA MEDICAL AND CLINICAL SERVICE FUND, 520 U.S. 806 (1997) [Syllabus]
	VARITY CORP. V. HOWE ET AL., 516 U.S. 489 (1996). [Syllabus]
	DENNIS V. UNITED STATES [Concurrence]
	COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES V. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BD. NO. 12 [Dissent]
	HODGSON V. MINNESOTA [Opinion]
	UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION V. LONG ISLAND RAIL ROAD CO. [Opinion]
	HUDSON V. PALMER [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	ILLINOIS EX REL. MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT [Dissent]
	GARCIA V. SAN ANTONIO TRANSIT AUTHORITY [Dissent]
	WHALEN V. ROE [Opinion]
	HUDSON V. PALMER [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	JACKSON V. METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. PARADISE [Syllabus]
	AGUILAR V. FELTON [Dissent]
	COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER [Opinion]
	WILSON V. LAYNE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. UNITED STATES [Concurrence]
	ROMER V. EVANS [Dissent]
	HUDGENS V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD [Dissent]
	BLUM V. YARETSKY [Dissent]
	WILSON V. LAYNE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	GADE V. NATIONAL SOLID WASTES MGMT. ASS'N, 505 U.S. 88 (1992). [Syllabus]
	CHEVRON U.S. A. INC. V. ECHAZABAL [Syllabus] The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 permits an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulation authorizing an employer to refuse to hire a disabled individual because his performance on the job would endanger his own health.
	AUTOMOBILE WORKERS V. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., 499 US.187 (1991) [Syllabus]
	CHAO V. MALLARD BAY DRILLING, INC. [Syllabus] The Occupational Safety and Health Administration's jurisdiction to issue citations to respondent barge owner was not pre-empted by the Coast Guard under §4(b)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970; and the barge in question was a "workplace" covered by the Act.
	EASTERN ASSOCIATED COAL CORP. V. MINE WORKERS [Syllabus] 1. Whether, as the First, Third, Fifth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits have held, there is a well defined and dominant public policy that prohibits enforcement of arbitration awards requiring reinstatement to safety sensitive positions of employees who test positive for illegal drugs, or whether, as the Second, Ninth, Tenth, and now Fourth Circuits have held, no such policy exists and courts must therefore uphold reinstatement to safety sensitive positions of those who test positive for illegal drugs. 2. Whether, as the Fourth, Ninth, and District of Columbia have held, an arbitration award should be vacated on public policy grounds only when the award itself violates positive law or requires unlawful conduct by the employer, or whether, as the First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits have held, such an award need not violate positive law to violate public policy---a question on which the Court granted certiorari, but did not reach, in United Paperwork's International Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29 (1987)."
	NORFOLK & WESTERN RAILWAY CO. V. HILES, 516 U.S. 400 (1996). [Syllabus]
	BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS V. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE R. CO.,, 516 U.S. 152 (1996) [Syllabus]
	ALBERTSONS, INC. V. KIRKINGBURG [Syllabus]
	WILKIE V. ROBBINS [Syllabus]
	VARITY CORP. V. HOWE ET AL., 516 U.S. 489 (1996). [Syllabus]
	DE BUONO . V. NYSA-ILA MEDICAL AND CLINICAL SERVICE FUND, 520 U.S. 806 (1997) [Syllabus]