Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Gender Discrimination/Independent Contractor
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled that a TV series hostess wasn't an employee but rather an independent contractor unprotected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Alberty-Velez v. Corporacion De Puerto Rico Para La Difusion Publica, 361 F.3d 1. Plaintiff Victoria Lis Alberty-Velez served as hostess of a TV series that profiled municipalities on WIPR in Puerto Rico. When she filed suit for pregnancy and gender discrimination, the district court granted summary judgment for the TV station.
Affirming in a ruling of first impression, the court of appeal initially decided that whether an individual qualifies as an employee under Title VII should be based on a common law agency test. Under this test, the appeals court then noted: “First, a television actress is a skilled position requiring talent and training not available on-the-job. … Second, Alberty provided the 'tools and instrumentalities' necessary for her to perform. Specifically, she provided, or obtained sponsors to provide, the costumes, jewelry, and other image-related supplies and services necessary for her appearance. … Third, WIPR could not assign Alberty work in addition to filming 'Desde Mi Pueblo.' [The hostess signed a new contract to work on each episode.] … Fourth, the method of payment favors independent contractor status. Alberty received a lump sum fee for each episode. … Fifth, WIPR did not provide Alberty with benefits. She did not receive paid leave, health insurance, life insurance, or retirement benefits from WIPR. … Sixth, Alberty's tax treatment suggests independent contractor status. Both she and WIPR classified her income as deriving from professional services rendered rather than wages earned.”
The Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, ruled that “creative necessity” is not an affirmative defense to a sexual harassment claim, but that it can be considered by a jury along with other factors in determining whether the defendants' conduct created a hostile work environment. Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions, B160528. Plaintiff Amaani Lyle, an African-American woman, was hired to be a writers' assistant on the TV series “Friends.” She was fired 4 months later because the defendants contended she was unable to type fast enough. Lyle filed suit alleging race and gender discrimination, racial and sexual harassment, and retaliation for opposing racial discrimination against African-Americans in the series casting. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court of appeal reversed on the harassment claims.
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.
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.
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.