Art As an Asset in Divorce
August 31, 2005
Death, divorce and debt" are the bread and butter of the art and antiques market, as every art world professional knows. Through good times and bad, these life cycle events frequently trigger sales and other transactions. With divorce, however, if emotions are not already present prior to filing papers, the process itself tends to intensify anger and mistrust between opposing sides.
The Progressive Lawyer
August 31, 2005
In March of this year, in Part One of this article, we discussed the importance of the initial pendente lite application in introducing the parties to the judge and setting the tone for the balance of the case. The mandate that we provide judges with sound, hard evidence at the <i>pendente lite</i> phase -- in order to enable the courts to deal fairly with both sides pending the submission of final proofs -- was heavily stressed.
Litigation
August 31, 2005
Recent decisions you need to know.
Country Club Membership? 'Priceless'
August 31, 2005
In wealthy communities, like Greenwich and Darien, CT, country club membership can take on momentous significance. Nevertheless, the question of whether club membership is marital property has not been settled. A recent case tackled the problem and left it unanswered.
Oregon Marriage Decision Has Impact on Employers
August 30, 2005
On April 14, 2005, the Oregon Supreme Court held in <i>Li</i> and <i>Kennedy v. Oregon</i> that the roughly 3000 marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples by Multnomah County are not valid. The Supreme Court's decision may change the obligations and opportunities for employers, depending on the nature of the employer and the decisions the employer has previously made regarding whether or not to treat certain partners of employees as if they were spouses.
Age Discrimination Ruling: Analysis
August 30, 2005
The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued an important decision concerning the Age Discrimination In Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). In <i>Smith v. Jackson, Miss.</i>, the Court held that employees aged 40 and over can assert claims for age discrimination under the ADEA based on the disparate impact of a facially neutral employment policy, even in the absence of discriminatory intent on the employers' part. In so doing, the Court reconciled a split in the federal circuit courts of appeal and aligned its view concerning the scope of the ADEA with its view of the scope of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which, according to prior Court decisions, permits employees to allege discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex and national origin based on the disparate impact of a facially neutral employment policy. Because employees located in the geographic areas covered by the federal circuits whose courts of appeal formerly prohibited the assertion of such claims under the ADEA can now assert disparate impact claims under the ADEA, the Smith opinion will likely result in increased litigation under the ADEA in respect of these types of claims.
