Dispute Resolution Gets a Makeover
September 02, 2003
Several governmental and regulatory bodies have announced new initiatives aimed at increasing access to their dispute resolution programs, strengthening the credentials of their neutral panels, and improving the efficiency of their dispute resolution processes. These decisions were reached, in part, after evaluating success rates and feedback relating to these dispute resolution programs.
Jury Awards $5.2 Million in Disability Case
September 02, 2003
A jury awarded $5.2 million to a plaintiff whose former employer, a modeling agency, failed to accommodate her asthma, subjected her to a hostile work environment, and terminated her in retaliation for making complaints about smoking in the workplace. <i>Gallegos v. Elite Model Mgmt. Corp.</i>, No. 120577/00 (N.Y. Co. Sup. Ct. 5/14/03)
Direct Evidence Not Required in Mixed Motive Case
September 02, 2003
Last month, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a plaintiff must present direct evidence of discrimination in order to obtain a mixed-motive instruction under Title VII, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991. <i>Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa</i>, 2003 WL 21310219 (U.S. June 9, 2003) The Court unanimously held that direct evidence is not required.
Development
September 02, 2003
Recent rulings of importance to your practice.
Index
September 02, 2003
A comprehensive list of key cases discussed in this issue.
Co-op's Fact Findings Held Binding on Eviction Court
September 02, 2003
<b><i>Part One of a Two-Part Article.</b></i>This commentary discusses ' critically ' a rule recently adopted by a unanimous Court of Appeals in a case in which a housing cooperative was attempting to evict a tenant deemed objectionable by his fellow shareholders. <i>40 W. 67th St. Corp. v. Pullman</i> (5/13/03). In order to understand fully the significance of the <i>Pullman</i> rule, it must be viewed in context. The general subject is the power of a landlord to terminate a tenancy based on a lease provision authorizing such action if the tenant becomes objectionable. More specifically, the issue is what role the courts are to play in determining whether or not the tenant did or did not do the things that he is accused of doing, which things, we will assume, all would agree would render him objectionable.
