Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Lateral Transfers: 'Adverse Actions'?
Retaliation claims are the growth industry of employment discrimination law. According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the number of reprisal charges filed with the agency has ballooned from under 11,000 in 1992 to more than 22,000 in 2002, rising steadily during that period from 15% to 27% of all EEOC charges. (EEOC, 'Charge Statistics: FY 1992 Through FY 2002,' www.eeoc.gov/stats/charges.html.)
One of the critical and frequently litigated issues in this area is determining what personnel actions constitute 'adverse employment actions' for purposes of establishing retaliation claims. While demotion and termination are the most obvious and legally recognized adverse employment actions, courts are ruling that under certain circumstances, even a purely lateral transfer can rise to the level of an adverse employment action.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the most comprehensive federal anti-discrimination statute, prohibits employers from retaliating against an individual who has 'opposed' an employment practice made illegal under the statute (known as the 'opposition clause'), or 'made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing' under the statute (known as the 'participation clause'). Similar anti-reprisal provisions are contained in other federal, state and local fair employment laws.
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.
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.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?