Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In a somewhat surprising 6-3 decision written by Chief Justice Rehnquist, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Congress had abrogated the states' Eleventh Amendment immunity when it enacted the Family Medical Leave Act and that therefore, state workers are entitled to the protection of that statute. In so ruling, the Court characterized Congress' goals in enacting the FMLA as protecting against gender-based discrimination in the workplace and eliminating stereotypes related to child-rearing and family care issues. As such, the Court concluded that challenges to the constitutionality of the FMLA warranted heightened scrutiny. Nevada Dep't of Human Resources v. Hibbs, 2003 WL 21210426 (5/27/03).
The Court's forceful defense of the FMLA and the compelling need for such legislation is noteworthy. The Court noted that at the time of the FMLA's enactment, states continued 'to rely on invalid gender stereotypes in the employment context, specifically in the administration of leave benefits. Reliance on such stereotypes cannot justify the States' gender discrimination in this area.'
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
A trend analysis of the benefits and challenges of bringing back administrative, word processing and billing services to law offices.
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
Summary Judgment Denied Defendant in Declaratory Action by Producer of To Kill a Mockingbird Broadway Play Seeking Amateur Theatrical Rights
“Baseball arbitration” refers to the process used in Major League Baseball in which if an eligible player's representative and the club ownership cannot reach a compensation agreement through negotiation, each party enters a final submission and during a formal hearing each side — player and management — presents its case and then the designated panel of arbitrators chooses one of the salary bids with no other result being allowed. This method has become increasingly popular even beyond the sport of baseball.
'Disconnect Between In-House and Outside Counsel is a continuation of the discussion of client expectations and the disconnect that often occurs. And although the outside attorneys should be pursuing how inside-counsel actually think, inside counsel should make an effort to impart this information without waiting to be asked.