Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Sales Engineer Defamed by Former Boss Awarded $1.1 Million
A jury awarded $1.1 million to a man who claimed his former boss defamed him by warning his current boss that he had a record of suing employers. Beheshti v. Liou, No. 2002-045972, Superior Court of Alameda County, Oakland, CA, 02-28-2007.
In 1999, Omid Beheshti, a sales engineer, won a suit against American Advantech Corp., Sunnyvale, for unpaid overtime. In 2001, Beheshti's former supervisor, John Liou, purporting to be from a debt resolution agency, sent a letter to Beheshti's current job and stated he had a record of suing employers. A second letter followed six months later. Beheshti claimed that Liou forged the letters in retaliation for the 1999 lawsuit. Liou admitted that he sent the letters, but only to warn the new employer. The jury was not persuaded and found for Beheshti.
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?