Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
FMLA Ruled Applicable to State Workers
In a somewhat surprising 6-3 decision written by Chief Justice Rehnquist, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Congress had abrogated the states' Eleventh Amendment immunity when it enacted the Family Medical Leave Act and that therefore, state workers are entitled to the protection of that statute. In so ruling, the Court characterized Congress' goals in enacting the FMLA as protecting against gender-based discrimination in the workplace and eliminating stereotypes related to child-rearing and family care issues. As such, the Court concluded that challenges to the constitutionality of the FMLA warranted heightened scrutiny. Nevada Dep't of Human Resources v. Hibbs, 2003 WL 21210426 (5/27/03).
The Court's forceful defense of the FMLA and the compelling need for such legislation is noteworthy. The Court noted that at the time of the FMLA's enactment, states continued 'to rely on invalid gender stereotypes in the employment context, specifically in the administration of leave benefits. Reliance on such stereotypes cannot justify the States' gender discrimination in this area.'
The Court distinguished the gender-based discrimination at the heart of the FMLA with age and disability discrimination, which the Court noted was not entitled to heightened review. On this basis, the Court distinguished its recent decisions upholding Eleventh Amendment immunity. The Court also emphasized that, unlike other forms of discrimination protection, the FMLA targets narrowly 'the fault line between work and family ' precisely where sex-based overgeneralization has been and remains strongest ' and affects only one aspect of the employment relationship.'
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?