Recently in Contracts Category
An homage to the passing of Robert Rauschenberg, American Artist and visionary, who taught us that the doors of perception are not just at museum entrances but anywhere we train our eyes to see. Rauschenberg was active in trying to move the United States to adopt "droit de suite," literally “right of follow,” which would give painters and sculptors continuing royalty payments when their works are resold, a system in place in most of Europe and much like the way musicians and songwriters in this country receive royalties when their works are replayed or rerecorded. Rauschenberg supposedly began this crusade after Robert Scull sold Thaws, which he purchased in 1958 for $800, for $85,000 in 1973.
Alan Milstein
Hillary Andrews, 38, contends that the cable network's brass turned a blind eye to the harassment because her co-anchor, Bob Stokes, was popular with viewers.
Andrews won her arbitration case three months ago and the final ruling was "highly critical of conduct by both Stokes and TWC management." The Weather Channel is now seeking to keep details of the arbitrator's report secret, while Andrews wants to publicly file the document in the context of a lawsuit she has now brought against Stokes in state court.
In her federal court filing seeking to release the arbitration ruling, Andrews reported that "TWC fired Stokes the day after" the arbitration award was issued and is now "understandably eager to assure that the Arbitrator's findings and conclusions never see the light of day."
Court records show that after her initial hire, Andrews was paired with Stokes, and apparently, she replaced a female "on-camera meteorologist" who had worked with Stokes. Andrews' pleadings contend that the prior anchor was abused daily by Stokes and that she "routinely hid in the women's dressing room in between shifts to avoid contact with him."
Andrews further contends that that anchorwoman was forced out of The Weather Channel after repeatedly complaining to management about Stokes's harassment.
Andrews then claims that "history quickly repeated itself". Specifically, Stokes began harassing her. Andrews contends that Stokes' behavior was "worse for [her] than for her predecessors because Stokes was sexually attracted to her and romantically obsessed with her." Stokes, she says, made crude sexual remarks to her, leered at her chest, and followed her into the women's dressing room. He also allegedly questioned her "over and over again, non-stop" about her sex life, and once noted, "It tortures me when you wear those heels and skirt." When she rebuffed his advances, Andrews charged, Stokes's "hostility and volatility became a constant" and he sought to "sabotage" her on-air performance and even resorted to insulting her during live shows.
Andrews eventually reported Stokes' behavior to The Weather Channel corporate officials and attempted to obtain a reassignment with a new co-anchor. Instead, Andrews alleged, she was relegated to a series of undesirable assignments, including "the overnight shift--the same assignment The Weather Channel had given Andrews's predecessor after she complained about Stokes."
The Weather Channel's owner, Atlanta-based Landmark Communications, has been accepting bids for the network, which it optimistically values at $5 billion. Sounds like they will need the money.
John M. Hanamirian
What happens when hourly employees are assigned Blackberrys or IPhones by their employer and compelled to respond to emails and text messages after the 8 hour shift? The marketing of such devices offers the plus side that such technology brings the office home or anywhere the employees happen to be. A number of legal scholars are hinting that such after-hours communicating is overtime work.
Everyone has heard or even uttered the complaint that the new technology puts them on call 24/7. No doubt attorneys and other hourly service providers are beginning to bill their clients for out of office time spent responding to emails. Logic would suggest that employees who find their employers are essentially getting their precious time for free may have a claim under wage and hour laws for the time spent out of the work place working. And employers may need to restrict the use of such devices for work related activity unless they are willing to pay for their employees’ time.
It’s a brave new world.
The London Times is reporting that Jerome Kerviel plans on suing his employer Société Générale for wrongful discharge. Kerviel you might remember was the rogue trader accused of losing his bank €5 billion in one of the world’s biggest financial scandals.
The 31 year old trader was recently released on bail after 37 days in prison on charges of breach of trust, fabricating documents and illegally accessing computers. The gist of Mr. Kerviel’s claims is that the bank violated French employment law by failing to hold a face to face meeting with its employee prior to discharge. The bank says that would have been difficult because the conditions of Kerviel’s bail forbade him from in any way communicating or contacting his employers. Good point.
A California Superior Court awarded Starbucks Baristas $105 million dollars yesterday in a class action brought over the sharing of tips. The case was brought by
Ms. Ferguson and Mr. McKiernan made a deal. He would donate his sperm and would never seek visitation; she agreed his donation would remain anonymous and to never seek parental support. It had all the hallmarks of an anonymous sperm donation except it was a private deal and the parties had previously had a romantic relationship.
Ms. Ferguson soon gave birth to twins. She married and, for five years, honored the deal with Mr. McKiernan. Her bond was hardly her word, however, and she brought suit against the father of her twins for child support. The trial judge expressed his dismay at her dishonest behavior but, because the deal was not binding on the twins, found the agreement was unenforceable and contrary to public policy. The Superior Court affirmed.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court would have none of it, or at least 3 of the 5 Justices who participated. The Court acknowledged the
Justice Eakin in dissent had it right. “Do these children,” he asked, unlike any other, lack the fundamental ability to look to both parents for support? . . .Is the means by which these parents contracted to accomplish conception enough to overcome that right. I think not.” Neither do I.
