Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Employment Discrimination Class Action Is Alive and Well
Just when some thought it might be safe to presume that class action discrimination lawsuits under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act were on the wane, several recent decisions involving the huge retailer, Wal-Mart, Inc., should give many employers pause for thought. In February 2007, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court decision that had certified a nationwide class of approximately 1.6 million current and former female employees who had worked at one or more of Wal-Mart's 3,400 stores throughout the United States. Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 474 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. 2007). On Dec.11, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a modified opinion, clearing the way for a reduction of the number of class members, while also clarifying its holding approving class certification. Dukes, Case No. 04-16688.
Moreover, on May 16, 2007, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas certified a class of black truck drivers who either were rejected for jobs from Wal-Mart or were deterred from applying because of the company's 'word-of-mouth' recruitment policy. Nelson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Nos. 2:04-CV00171, 2007 WL 1443114 (E.D. Ark. May 16, 2007).
The recent prevalence of class actions in employment discrimination cases is surprising to some. Indeed, the passage of the 1991 Civil Rights Act was viewed by many as a step toward stifling class action litigation of cases alleging intentional discrimination. In 1991, buttressed by a belief that additional remedies under Federal Law were needed to deter intentional discrimination in the workplace, Congress made punitive and compensatory damages available to plaintiffs claiming intentional discrimination. See 42 U.S.C. ' 1981a(a)(1). In addition, Congress provided that either party to a claim is entitled to request a jury trial. See 42 U.S.C. ' 1981a (c). Both the additional damages provisions and the entitlement to request a jury trial bring into question the continued viability of the class action as a vehicle for alleging intentional discrimination.
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.
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.
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.
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?