Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
No Skirting This Issue
Look it up. It's in the Constitution. Or so argued one municipal transit authority employee when her employer mandated that all employees ' male and female ' wear pants. The employee, Grazyna Zalewska, argued that wearing a skirt was expressive conduct protected by the Constitution and that the ban on skirts implicated her liberty and equal protection rights under it. Expressive perhaps, but not on a Constitutional level, ruled the Second Circuit. Zalewska v. County of Sullivan, 316 F.3d 314 (2d Cir. 1/10/03) (Cardamone, Meskill, & Straub, Cir. Judges).
Zalewska was a van driver for Sullivan County's Meals-on-Wheels program. The County mandated that all employees wear a uniform consisting of a shirt, jacket, and pants. The stated reason for this dress code was to present a positive appearance to the public, create an esprit-de-corps among employees, and for safety. Zalewska objected, claiming that as a matter of 'familial and cultural custom' she never wore pants. She wore a skirt to work despite being told not to do so. She was suspended and later transferred to another position where she was allowed to wear skirts.
Zalewska sued for damages alleging that her due process and equal protection rights as well as her First Amendment rights had been violated. The district court granted the County's summary judgment motion.
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 Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.