Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
A New Avenue for Retaliatory Discharge Claims
As courts across the country continue to visit the issue of employment-at-will, the results show states continuing to chip away at the once mighty doctrine. Tennessee, which has been a long-standing observer of the employment-at-will doctrine, continues to hold firm, albeit not without some erosion of the doctrine. The theory of retaliatory discharge has become a commonplace cause of action in most employment lawsuits. However, a recent Tennessee decision opens the window a little further for plaintiffs seeking to establish a public policy argument in support of their wrongful discharge claim.
One of the numerous exceptions to the doctrine of at-will employment in Tennessee is the tort of retaliatory discharge. The four elements of a retaliatory discharge claim are: 1) an employment-at-will relationship with the employee; 2) the discharge of the employee; 3) the discharge resulted from the employee's attempt to exercise a statutory or constitutional right, or for some other reason that violates a 'clear public policy evidenced by an unambiguous constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provision'; and 4) the employee's exercise of
protected rights or compliance with a clear public policy was a substantial factor in the employer's decision to terminate the employee. Crews v. Buckman Labs. Int'l, Inc., 78 S.W.3d 852, 857 (Tenn. 2002). The third element is often the most difficult for employees to establish; after all, who knows what a 'clear public policy evidenced by an unambiguous constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provision' is, anyway?
Little v. Eastgate of Jackson
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.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
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?