Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Direct Evidence Not Needed in Mixed-Motive Cases
The Supreme Court ended its last term holding that direct evidence of discrimination is not necessary in a Title VII mixed-motive case. Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 123 S. Ct. 2148 (2003) brings an end to an appellate court split regarding evidentiary burdens that began with the Court's plurality decision in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989).
In Price Waterhouse, the Court considered facts indicating that both legitimate and illegal reasons motivated an employment decision. When Ann Hopkins was passed over for partnership, she was told that she needed to “take a course at charm school” and to “dress more femininely.” But there was also evidence to suggest that the company had legitimate concerns about Hopkins' performance. The Court concluded that under Title VII, an employer may avoid liability “by proving that it would have made the same decision even if it had not allowed [protected status] to play such a role.”
The Justices, however, could not agree how the burden of proof fell out in a mixed-motive case. Four saw no “limitation on the possible ways of proving that stereotyping played a motivating role in an employment decision.” In a concurring opinion, Justice O'Connor suggested that the burden should shift to the employer where a plaintiff shows “by direct evidence that an illegitimate criterion was a substantial factor in the decision.”
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.