Elkins Park Discrimination Lawyer, Pennsylvania

Free Help: Use This Form or Call 800-814-6700

Member Representative

Call me for fastest results!
800-814-6700

Free Help: Use This Form or Call 800-814-6700

By submitting this request, I authorize you to forward my information to multiple potential lawyers and I agree to your Terms of Use and Privacy Policy including the Consent to Receive Automated Phone Calls, Emails and Texts. Information you provide is not privileged or confidential.


Includes: Race Discrimination, Religious Discrimination

Randy H. Kaplan

Age Discrimination, Alimony & Spousal Support, Adoption, Americans with Disabilities Act , Federal Appellate Practice
Status:  In Good Standing *Status is reviewed annually. For latest information visit here           Licensed:  43 Years

Free Help: Use This Form or Call 800-814-6700

Member Representative

Call me for fastest results!
800-814-6700

Free Help: Use This Form or Call 800-814-6700

By submitting this request, I authorize you to forward my information to multiple potential lawyers and I agree to your Terms of Use and Privacy Policy including the Consent to Receive Automated Phone Calls, Emails and Texts. Information you provide is not privileged or confidential.

Lawyer.com

TIPS

Easily find Elkins Park Discrimination Lawyers and Elkins Park Discrimination Law Firms. For more attorneys, search all Civil & Human Rights areas including Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Elder Law and Native People attorneys.

SAMPLE LEGAL CASES

Commonwealth v. Ligons

... During voir dire, Appellant, who is African American, did not raise any claims of racial discrimination in jury selection under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 US 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). ... Pursell, 724 A.2d at 304. VIII. Racial Discrimination in Death Sentence. ...

Com. v. Marshall

... [1] Appellant contends that newly discovered evidence supports his claim of racial discrimination in the seating of a jury during his trial and penalty hearing, in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 US 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). Following careful review, we affirm. ...

Weaver v. Harpster

... [1] In this case, we address the intersection of the PHRA and the public policy exception to at-will employment, namely, whether an employer with fewer than four employees, although not subject to the PHRA's prohibition against sexual discrimination, nevertheless is prohibited ...

© 2024 LAWYER.COM INC.

Use of this website constitutes acceptance of Lawyer.com’s Terms of Use, Email, Phone, & Text Message and Privacy Policies.