Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Employee Terminated for Proper and Improper Motives Was Legally Fired
A federal district court has ruled that an administrator was legally fired when a grant funding her pay ended, despite direct evidence of age discrimination. Prater v. Joliet Junior College, 2003 WL 22251395 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 2).
Plaintiff Gwendolyn Prater worked in outreach recruitment at Joliet Junior College, a position funded by an annual grant of $50,000 from the Illinois Board of Education. In 1998, Prater's supervisor informed her that there might not be sufficient funding for her job the following year, and that she would have to begin working with nonpublic aid clients. Prater's response was that she did not want to do so without additional compensation. In 1999, the grant was reduced, and Prater was told again that she had to work with the nonpublic aid clients. Prater refused to do so, and replied that the supervisor should “do what she has to do.” Prater was terminated, and brought suit under the ADEA.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?