Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Employment Law Update: Recent Developments in the Supreme Court and Congress
The U.S. Supreme Court continues to keep employers on their toes by dealing with cases involving employment issues this term. During the first week of December, the Court issued its decision in Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez, No. 02-749, ___ S. Ct. ___ (2003), an ADA case involving the legality of an employer policy prohibiting the rehire of individuals fired for violating the employer's drug use policy. Also, the Court agreed to consider two other employment cases. First, in Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, the Court will decide whether constructive discharge is a “tangible employment action” for purposes of sexual harassment claims. Second, in Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. Heinz, the Court will tackle an issue involving ERISA's anti-cutback rule for pension benefits.
In Raytheon, the Court declined to decide the issue generating interest among employment law practitioners (and upon which it had granted certiorari): “whether the ADA confers preferential rehire rights on disabled employees lawfully terminated for violating workplace conduct rules.” Instead, the Court sent the decision back to the Ninth Circuit due to its failure to apply the proper standard for evaluating the plaintiff's claims.
This case involved an appeal from the Ninth Circuit's decision reversing a grant of summary judgment in favor of Raytheon Company in claims brought by a former employee, Joe Hernandez. Hernandez worked for Hughes Missile Systems (later acquired by Raytheon) for 25 years. In July 1991, Hernandez tested positive for cocaine use on the job, an offense that was grounds for his immediate termination. Rather than being terminated, however, Hernandez accepted the provided option to resign in lieu of termination, which he chose to do. This choice was noted on his personnel file and, pursuant to an “unwritten” policy, resulted in his ineligibility for rehire.
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
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?