Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 2017–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Iowa courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Simon Seeding & Sod, Inc. v. Dubuque Human Rights Commission and Jermaine Stapletongreen2 sentences2018For purposes of this subsection, individuals who are members of the employer’s family shall not be counted as employees.” Iowa Code § 216.6 (6)(a); see also Simon Seeding & Sod, Inc. v. Dubuque Human Rights Comm’n, 895 N.W.2d 446, 458 (Iowa 2017) (holding numerosity requirement is “a merits-based element of proof required for liability, rather than a jurisdictional prerequisite”). 2017For purposes of this subsection, individuals who are members of the employer’s family shall not be counted as employees.” Iowa Code § 216.6 (6)(a); see also Simon Seeding & Sod, Inc. v. Dubuque Human Rights Comm’n, 895 N.W.2d 446, 458 (Iowa 2017) (holding numerosity requirement is “a merits-based element of proof required for liability, rather than a jurisdictional prerequisite”). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp.
green
2 sentences2017But “[n]othing in the text of Title VII indicated] that Congress intended courts, on their own motion, to assure that the employee-numerosity requirement is met.” Id. at 514, 126 S.Ct. at 1244 . 2017But “[n]othing in the text of Title VII indicate[d] that Congress intended courts, on their own motion, to assure that the employee-numerosity requirement is met.” Id. at 514, 126 S. Ct. at 1244 . | 3 | 2017–2017 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.