Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
National Litigation Hotline
Second Circuit Deems Retaliation by State Authority Against Those Who Speak Out
Resolving a split among the district courts in the circuit, the Second Circuit has found that “any use of state authority to retaliate against those who speak out against discrimination suffered by others, including witnesses or potential witnesses in proceedings addressing discrimination claims, can give rise to a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 and the First Amendment.” Konits v. Valley Stream Central High School District, 2005 WL 31397 (2nd Cir. (N.Y.)).
In 1996, Carol Konits, a tenured music teacher in the Valley Stream Central High School District (the District) filed a lawsuit against the District, the Board of Education, and several school administrators claiming that she had endured adverse personnel actions in retaliation for assisting a custodial employee, Marie Kenny, with her gender discrimination in employment action against the District. Konit's assistance to Kenny included helping her to file internal complaints with the District, referring Kenny to her sister, a licensed attorney, who then represented Kenny in both her EEOC grievance and her federal lawsuit against the District, and appearing as a witness in Kenny's federal action. Konits alleged that this assistance caused the defendants to retaliate against her by removing her from her position as orchestra teacher and conductor, by requiring that she work as the general music teacher in the special education department, and by withholding her seniority rights. Konits' 1996 lawsuit was eventually settled at trial in July of 1999.
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.