Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Exclusion of Key Employer Witnesses Warrants New Trial
Setting aside a $300,000 verdict, he Sixth Circuit has held that a trial court erred in refusing to allow three key employer witnesses to testify in a racial harassment trial. Wheaton v. North Oakland Med. Ctr., 2005 WL 1130983 (6th Cir. May 10).
Plaintiff Lana Wheaton, a caucasian employee of the medical center, alleged that she was harassed starting in the summer of 1998. She claimed to have found “threatening and racially charged notes” on her car, including a note threatening her with physical violence. At trial, Wheaton testified that after she reported the notes to her supervisor, but no disciplinary action was taken. In 2000, Wheaton found an offensive e-mail in her desk, disparaging white females and criticizing interracial relationships. (Wheaton's longtime boyfriend was black.) When Wheaton again complained, management concluded that the harassment was due to personality conflicts. The entire department in which Wheaton worked was counseled on the medical center's harassment policy, but no one was disciplined. Wheaton filed suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging racial harassment. At trial, the court refused to allow the testimony of three potentially key employer witnesses who arrived late. After trial, Wheaton was awarded $1 million in damages. Those damages were later capped at Title VII's limit of $300,000. The medical center appealed the judgment, arguing that the trial court erred in refusing to allow the three witnesses to testify.
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.
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?