Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
This review of U.S. Supreme Court decisions from the 2015-16 term in the area of labor and employment law looks at rulings pertaining to whether automobile service advisers are exempt from overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); whether a ruling on the merits is a necessary predicate to finding a defendant is a prevailing party eligible for an attorney fees award under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII); when the statute of limitations period begins running in constructive discharge cases under Title VII; whether a public sector employee may bring a First Amendment claim where his employer takes an adverse employment action based on a mistaken belief the employee engaged in constitutionally protected political activity; and whether requiring religious non-profits to affirmatively opt out of providing employees with contraceptive coverage under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
Overtime Exemption
In 2011, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued an interpretation, at 29 CFR ' 779.372(c), stating that automobile service advisers were not included in the FLSA exemption from overtime compensation for “any salesman, partsman, or mechanic primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles ' ,” at 29 USC ' 213(b)(10)(A) (the Auto Sales Exemption). Departing from the DOL's decades-old practice of treating service advisers as exempt, the DOL interpreted the term “salesman” narrowly to mean “only an employee who sells automobiles, trucks, or farm implements”; automobile service advisers sell automobile repair and maintenance services, but not vehicles.
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.