Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Statute of Limitations Tolled During Pendency of EEOC Claim
The filing of a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission before the limitations period ended tolled the statute of limitations period for filing a lawsuit for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Prevost v. New York, 2004 WL 32860 (S.D.N.Y. 1/6/04) (Motley, D.J.)
The employee's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was predicated on actions the employer allegedly committed in and prior to January 2002. The applicable statute of limitations is 1 year. The employee filed a charge with the EEOC in May 2002, and received her right to sue letter in January 2003. The employee filed her complaint in the Southern District in April 2003.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?