These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

218 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10259899)

  • 21. The pregnant worker: who bears the burden?
    Bunch PL; McFarlane DR; Dowben C
    Women Health; 1979; 4(4):333-44. PubMed ID: 532181
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Maternity exclusion in disability plans continues to be major legal issue.
    Employee Benefit Plan Rev; 1977 Mar; 31(9):38-9. PubMed ID: 10304814
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Maternity and employment benefits in the United States - where are we now?
    McFarlane DR
    Women Health; 1976; 1(1):21-6. PubMed ID: 10236579
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Employment law--Title VII--Eighth Circuit holds that benefits plans excluding all contraceptives do not discriminate based on sex.--In re Union Pacific Railroad Employment Practices Litigation, 479 F.3d 936 (8th Cir. 2007), reh'g and reh'g en banc denied, No. 06-1706 (8th Cir. May 23, 2007).
    Harv Law Rev; 2008 Mar; 121(5):1447-54. PubMed ID: 18441613
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Accumulated sick leave cannot be used for maternity.
    Employee Benefit Plan Rev; 1977 Sep; 32(3):70. PubMed ID: 10304849
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Supreme Court dismisses Wetzel discrimination-in-maternity-benefits case.
    Employee Benefit Plan Rev; 1976 May; 30(11):14. PubMed ID: 1037540
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Facing reality: the Pregnancy Discrimination Act falls short for women undergoing infertility treatment.
    Cushing K
    Seton Hall Law Rev; 2010; 40(4):1697-731. PubMed ID: 21280392
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. High court postpones sex-discrimination-in-maternity-benefits case.
    Employee Benefit Plan Rev; 1976 Jul; 31(1):5. PubMed ID: 1037562
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. GE loses Title VII appeal: court rules discrimination.
    Employee Benefit Plan Rev; 1975 Aug; 30(2):6. PubMed ID: 1244065
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. U.S. District Court orders payment of maternity benefits to unwed mothers under Title VII.
    Employee Benefit Plan Rev; 1976 Apr; 30(10):26, 28. PubMed ID: 1037496
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Sex discrimination or a hard pill for employers to swallow: examining the denial of contraceptive benefits in the wake of Erickson v. Bartell Drug Co.
    Korland L
    Case West Reserve Law Rev; 2002; 53(2):531-67. PubMed ID: 16506335
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. "Aiello" application again rejected in maternity plea.
    Employee Benefit Plan Rev; 1975 May; 29(11):56. PubMed ID: 1244041
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. EEOC jeopardizes pregnancy benefits for women who quit.
    Geisel J
    Bus Insur; 1979 Oct; 13(22):1, 101. PubMed ID: 10244096
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. A battle over birth "control": legal and legislative employer prescription contraception benefit mandates.
    Loomis CK
    William Mary Bill Rights J; 2002 Dec; 11(1):463-94. PubMed ID: 16389684
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Conflict in district courts on "Aiello" application to Title VII maternity issues.
    Employee Benefit Plan Rev; 1975 Jan; 29(7):24-5. PubMed ID: 1244050
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act.
    Sfikas EM
    CDS Rev; 1998; 91(4):36-7. PubMed ID: 9760893
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. An evaluation of the costs of pregnancy disability.
    McDonough CC; Kistler LH
    Empl Benefits J; 1981 Dec; 6(4):7-11, 15. PubMed ID: 10253399
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Supreme Court's General Electric decision results in drive for corrective legislation.
    Employee Benefit Plan Rev; 1977 Jan; 31(7):8-9. PubMed ID: 10277861
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Insurance: exclusion of contraception found discriminatory by EEOC.
    Netter W
    J Law Med Ethics; 2001; 29(1):104-6. PubMed ID: 11521259
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Prescription contraceptives: benefit whose time has come?
    Friedman MJ
    Manag Care; 2001 Oct; 10(10):62-3. PubMed ID: 11688113
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.