Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
National Litigation Hotline
Mechanic Trainee Not an Employee for Purposes of Obtaining Relief Under ADA
The Fifth Circuit has held that the student of an automotive mechanical school who had dyslexia and attention deficit disorder lacked standing to bring an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) employment discrimination suit against the school where he was not in an employment relationship with either the school or the automotive manufacturer who provided funding for and developed the admissions policies and curriculum for the school. Brennan v. Mercedes Benz USA, 2004 WL 2224473 (Oct. 5, 2004).
After completing an entry-level automotive skills program offered by United Technical Institute of Texas, Inc. (UTI), in which he requested and obtained several accommodations for his disabilities, Plaintiff John Brennan was admitted into a more advanced training program offered by an affiliate corporation, Custom Training Group, Inc. (CTG), which focuses its training on automobiles from specific manufacturers. Brennan became a student of CTG's Mercedes Benz elite post-graduate training program, for which Mercedes provides funding, establishes admissions and failure standards, and develops a curriculum enabling its students to eventually obtain employment with a Mercedes Benz dealership. Admission into the elite program is not considered an offer of employment, and if graduates of the school desire to be employed by Mercedes they must apply for jobs with independent Mercedes Benz dealerships and service centers. Brennan was therefore never paid wages, benefits, or compensation from UTI, CTG, or Mercedes.
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.