Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
National Litigation Hotline
Eighth Circuit Finds Age Ratio Provision in Collective Bargaining Agreement in Violation of Minnesota Human Rights Act.
The Eighth Circuit has held that a provision in a collective bargaining agreement requiring the employer to maintain a workforce in which at least one of every five workers is at least 50 years old violates the Minnesota Human Rights Act (the MHRA) and cannot be enforced. Ace Elec. Contractors Inc. v. Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers Local 292, 2005 WL 1639458 (8th Cir. Jul. 14).
As part of a reduction in force, Ace Electrical Contractors (Ace) terminated a number of employees, including two workers who were over the age of 50. Those two employees, who were members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 292 (the Union), then claimed that their termination violated the collective bargaining agreement and filed a grievance against Ace. Upon entertaining the grievance and failing to reach a determination, the labor-management committee of the Minneapolis chapter of the National Electrical Contractors Association (the NECA) requested an opinion from the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (the Department). Although the Department's opinion clearly stated that the age ratio provided for in the collective bargaining agreement violated the MHRA, the arbitrator decided in favor of the employees, and Ace and the NECA filed in state court seeking to vacate that award. The action was then removed to federal court by the union. The district court followed the Department's opinion in holding that the age ratio provision violated the MHRA, and the Union appealed.
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.