Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Coordinating Complex Employment Litigation
In the past several years, employment class and collective action lawsuits have caught the attention of employees across the country. Many of these cases have resulted in multi-million dollar settlements or verdicts. Merely by way of example, within the first several months of 2004, the court granted approval of a $36.5 million settlement for alleged gender discrimination against United Airlines; the City of New York paid $26.8 million for claims of discrimination by a class of Hispanic police officers; and Longhorn Steakhouse agreed to pay $525,000 to settle a claim brought by the EEOC for alleged sexual harassment of two teenaged employees.
Equally troubling, once an industry or corporation is viewed as potentially vulnerable on an issue, copycat cases may be brought in multiple jurisdictions against the same defendant or against others in the same industry. Likewise, the same plaintiffs' counsel may bring multiple lawsuits against the same company or other companies in the same business or industry. For example, Taco Bell reached a $9 million settlement with some of its California employees based on claims of working off the clock and missed meal breaks. Taco Bell has also faced similar lawsuits in Arizona, Washington and Oregon. Clearly, companies must aggressively defend such class and collective actions. Moreover, proactive companies will want to ensure that they are properly positioned to defend against future class or collective claims. Coordinating large class cases or multi-jurisdictional litigation is challenging and demands unique case management strategies.
Engaging National Coordinating Counsel
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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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
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.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
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.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
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.