Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Which State's Anti-Discrimination Law Applies?
For today's multistate employer, it is rare to see a set of case facts that touches on only one jurisdiction. Take the example set by a 2010 age discrimination case out of New York. In Hoffman v. Parade Publications, the plaintiff worked and resided in Georgia; the decision to end his employment was made in New York at the defendant's New York headquarters, and he received news of his termination while in West Virginia. Such a factual scenario begs the question: Which state's law applies? Is it the law of the state where the allegedly discriminatory decision is made? Where the company is headquartered? Or the law of the state where the impact of any allegedly discriminatory decision is felt (generally, where the plaintiff resides)?
This article addresses recent case law on this issue, ending with an analysis of the New York Court of Appeals' decision in Hoffman. It concludes that the application of a state's laws beyond its borders conflicts with the longstanding and well-accepted principle that a state's law should only be given effect within its boundaries. Therefore, states should not extend their anti-discrimination statutes to those working outside their borders unless the employee can plead and prove that the alleged discrimination had an actual impact within the jurisdiction.
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
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
How AI Has Affected PR
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.