Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Employee Relief in the Aftermath of Katrina
Both established and recently enacted laws may offer aid and protection to employees affected by natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina. Employees affected by natural disasters such as Katrina may be protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) if they suffer from a disability as the result of the event, or may be eligible for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA” if they or a family member have suffered a serious health condition as the result of the storm. Additionally, affected employees may be eligible for relief under measures enacted as a direct response to the event, such as the Katrina Emergency Tax Relief Act of 2005 (KETRA), or may seek relief from previously established assistance programs, such as unemployment insurance or the federal Disaster Unemployment Assistance program.
Employee Leave
Employees affected by Hurricane Katrina may be entitled to up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave under FMLA for a serious health condition caused by the hurricane. Additionally, employees who must care for a child, spouse, or parent with a serious medical condition may also be entitled to the same amount of leave under the FMLA. Employees who have been disabled by the effects of Katrina may be protected under the ADA. Although these laws are often discussed, they are worth reviewing here, as Katrina directly affected millions of victims, many of whom were injured in the storm and its aftermath. (Note: although certain states may impose more substantial family and medical leave obligations on employers, the states most heavily affected by the hurricane — Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama – do not).
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.