Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
What Not to Do in ADA Cases
A recent case in the Federal District Court for the District of Maine offers in-house counsel and others providing employment law advice to corporate clients with a lesson in what not to do when faced with an employee suffering from a mental health disability and seeking leave for hospitalization as an accommodation.
Land Air Express of New England, Inc., an air freight and delivery company with terminals in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Massachusetts, recently settled claims raised by a former employee who was terminated while in the hospital seeking medical care for longstanding mental health diagnoses. Land Air paid in excess of $350,000 to settle the employee's claims, and further was obligated to enter into a Consent Decree with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) designed to prevent discrimination on the basis of disability by Land Air in the future. The case marks the first time the EEOC has taken a case involving mental illness in New England. The case also provides a “Monday-morning quarterback” view of just how things can go wrong when a company fails to follow the requirements of the law.
The suit arose when the employee, Donna Malone, began to experience increased mental health symptoms in the Spring and Summer of 1999. Malone had been employed with the company for a number of years and had no negative performance evaluations. In fact, she had no personnel file at all. At least, Land Air was unable to locate any personnel file when faced with a suit. Here arose problem number one for Land Air: It was unable to support any allegations of performance issues with any documentation, making its claims that much weaker on that front.
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?