Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
A recent federal lawsuit could change the way employers need to structure their employment policies and procedures as they impact transgender employers under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
For many years, transgender individuals have relied primarily on state anti-discrimination laws to bring claims of employment discrimination against employers. After the landmark 1989 Supreme Court case Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins made sex-stereotyping a viable claim for sex discrimination under Title VII, courts in a few Circuits ' notably the U.S. Courts of Appeal for the First, Sixth, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits ' have held that certain forms of discrimination against a person for being transgender is prohibited by Title VII under a Price Waterhouse theory, or equivalent federal laws. For purposes of this article, I will use the word “transgender” as an umbrella term to discuss individuals whose gender identity and/or expression is different than what society might expect based on their sex assigned at birth.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) took the position that Title VII prohibits discrimination against transgender individuals in its 2012 Macy v. Holder finding. The EEOC also promulgates guidance and regulations, which reference that it considers transgender as a protected status under Title VII. A new lawsuit posits an additional theory of discrimination protection for transgender employees, and due to a Statement of Interest filed by the government in that case, regardless of the outcome, the scope of federal protection for transgender individuals is poised to shift, dramatically.
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.
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?
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.