|

With the increase in sensitivities to gender and race discrimination and the resulting lawsuits, more corporations are seeking ways in which to help cater for the divisions in gender and background of employees.

Sexual harassment suits have gone up in the light of the #metoo and many other ethnic-related and religious identities are not holding back when it comes to taking behavior that they do not approve of to the courts.

Some suits have gone so far to include the following words in their pleadings as proof of an alleged racist or sexist culture:

A consumer bureau “maintains a biased culture replete with harmful stereotypes regarding its racial minority and female employees that infect its policies and decision-making, including performance evaluations, compensation, and promotions.” (U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau have charged they were discriminated against by officials of the bureau once headed by Cordray.) 

In that suit, the bureau has responded by stating Cordray “worked hard to build a more inclusive and diverse workplace, launching initiatives to ensure women and minorities receive fair treatment and fundamentally reforming the management practices of the bureau. Civil rights leaders stood by Director Cordray then, and they stand by him now.”

This has forced some companies to change their approach when it comes to steering away from segregated groups within a workforce environment.  People who are not included, do not divest and are more likely to drive up costs for employers overall.  Disgruntled, angry employees take it to the news and courts, leading to bad publicity and unnecessary costs. Continue reading ›

|

The Non-Compete

All contracts are subject to scrutiny before the law, especially when a dispute arises, including employment ones.  The importance of fair and just contracts always comes up in the media spotlight and the courts.  If a contract is too much in favor of one party who has far more bargaining power over the other party, it may violate the law. Employers should take this into consideration when drafting terms and have them reviewed by attorneys who are familiar with restrictive covenants within the scope of employment law.

One Clause Cannot Fit All Employees

A “one size fits all policy” when drafting restrictive covenants, will risk the clause being unenforceable. This is especially true if the demand is unreasonable or not necessary to protect legitimate business interests. When entering into the employment domain, covenants are imposed on employees restricting what they can and cannot do once they leave the job. Violations and restrictions are what employers often look for when they wish to seek enforceability of a contract that was entered into when employees decide to move elsewhere. Typically, such agreements prohibit the competing with an ex-employee for a certain period after the employee has left the business, or prevents the ex-employee from soliciting or dealing with customers of the business by using knowledge of those customers gained.  This issue was a reminder in the case of Dumrauf, where the Courts later deemed teh non-compete agreement to be unenforceable because it was too restrictive.

The Illinois Attorney General, Lisa Madigan, required WeWork Inc. to end its use of an overly broad clause for almost all of its employers. Overall, over 1,800 employees agreements were altered to become a less restrictive version and 1,400 agreements were rendered too restrictive voided.  The agreement went so far as to prohibit all employees from taking jobs with competitors, including cleaners, assistants, baristas and others who earn close to minimum wage.  It was viewed as being a career obstacle which did not allow people to make better decisions with their lives. The clause appeared to be one set for all employees and barred them for working with competitors after they left.  It also prohibited a worker from working anywhere where WeWork did.  That is a cost that WeWork had to bear as a social stigma in society, legally and will have a negative image in the minds of future employees as well.  Building back trust and rapport will be difficult. Continue reading ›

|

If you’re going to claim that the use of certain content counts as fair use, you should probably know what “fair use” means.

The fair use doctrine allows people limited use of copyrighted content without the need to get permission from the copyright holder first, but the law is specific about how and under what circumstances someone can claim fair use of a particular piece of content.

First, they can only use part of the content. Just reproducing the entire piece and distributing it on your own is not fair use.

Second, fair use is generally used to make a point about the content being used, such as in a parody or a review.

Third, whether the work in question is of a creative or factual nature.

Fourth, whether the person using the content for fair use intends to profit off the material in any way.

According to Judge Thomas M. Durkin, Jasmine Enterprises Inc. did not meet any of those requirements when claiming that their use of the three copyrighted photos they stole from FameFlynet constituted fair use. Continue reading ›

|

The primary laws that govern the disclosures to shareholders and the marketplace include the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”).  These laws have come subject to scrutiny in the Camping World Holdings, Inc. who suffered financial losses in excess of $100,000 due to a failure to disclose.  Some of their executives have been charged with failing to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating federal securities laws.

Generally speaking, causes of action have been interpreted by the federal courts to specifically set forth in the statutes and to address claims brought as class actions.  These types of claims are often brought forward and against the corporation, its directors and officers, purchasers and sellers of securities, persons otherwise having a duty to investors who participate in the alleged disclosure violation.  Sometimes accountants and underwriters and persons required to make public filings with the SEC.  The history behind it is entrenched in common law notions of disclosure claims such as fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Continue reading ›

|

With all the talk around Roy Moore’s alleged sexual misconduct around young girls, including a Pulitzer-Prize winning article in The Washington Post, it’s hard to believe one actor’s prank could make much of a difference, but Moore alleges it did.

For an episode of his show, Who Is America? that aired on July 29th, Sacha Baron Cohen invited Moore to Washington D.C. under the pretense of an award for Moore’s support of Israel. Instead, Moore met with Cohen disguised as his character, Erran Morad, an Israeli “anti-terrorism expert.”

During a sit-down between “Morad” and Moore, Morad told Moore about a particular enzyme that pedophiles secrete at much higher rates than normal people. He said that Israelis had developed a machine that could detect this enzyme, with the idea being that they could install the machines at school entrances to alert staff of any pedophiles entering the building.

Morad then produced what he claimed was one of these machines, saying it would beep if waved over a pedophile but would remain silent if waved over a normal person. Of course, the “machine” was rigged to beep when waved over Moore, at which point Morad pretended to be confused, claiming the machine must be malfunctioning and asking Moore if the jacket he was wearing belonged to him and whether he had loaned it to anyone recently.

Moore denied the insinuation that he’s a pedophile, pointing to his 33-year-long marriage as evidence and alleging he had never been accused of such things. He eventually ended the interview and left, saying he supported Israel, but not the kind of antics to which he was being subjected. Continue reading ›

|

As Alex Jones prepares to deal with the shutdown of several of his social media pages (including four Facebook pages and his Infowars YouTube channel), he also has to contend with multiple defamation lawsuits that have been filed against him, at least one of which will soon be moving forward.

Judge Scott Jenkins of the District Court for the 53rd District in Austin, Texas, denied Jones’s motion to dismiss the case. Jones claimed his hateful speech was protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, but Judge Jenkins disagreed. Defamation is not protected under the First Amendment, and if the plaintiffs can prove their claims of financial damages as a result of Jones’s defamatory statements, then they’ll have a solid case for defamation.

In his request to have the lawsuit dismissed, Jones included a request that the families suing him pay him $100,000 for the legal fees he has incurred in defending himself against their lawsuit.

While defendants are often made to pay legal fees if a court rules against them, it’s almost unheard of for a court to require a plaintiff to pay for a defendant’s legal fees. As the situation currently stands for Jones, not only will he not get that $100,000, but he might have to pay more than $1 million in damages to Leonard Pozner and Veronique De La Rosa, the parents of six-year-old Noah, who was one of the children gunned down at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012.

Jones has repeatedly called the mass shooting a hoax and accused victims and family members of being actors who are paid by the government and gun control lobbyists to carry out their anti-gun conspiracy. Continue reading ›

|

The former president of the College of DuPage won a victory in his federal court appeal against the trustees who ousted him. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that his employment contract was valid under Illinois law.

Robert Breuder was hired as president of the Glen Ellyn, Illinois-based community college for a four-year term beginning in 2008. The college’s board of trustees later extended his contract through 2019. In 2015, newly elected trustees, accusing Breuder of misconduct, discharged him without notice or a hearing. The board denied his severance pay and retirement benefits.

Breuder filed a complaint in Illinois federal court on state and federal grounds, accusing the board of breach of contract, deprivation of property without due process of law, and defamatory statements.

Public employees who serve pursuant to a contract are considered to have a property right in their job and generally must be afforded a hearing before termination.

The board obtained the dismissal of the complaint on the grounds that Breuder never had a valid employment contract.

The crux of the board’s argument was that under Illinois law dating back over a century, a governmental body whose members serve limited terms may not enter into contracts that extend beyond those terms (Millikin v. Edgar County, 142 Ill. 528 (1892)). The board that originally hired Breuder contained members whose terms expired the following year. Therefore, the defendants reasoned, both the original four-year contract and the extensions were invalid. Continue reading ›

|

Being skilled at contracts and the negotiation process is important.  Knowing when to enter and when to exit is equally as important.  Some terms become non-negotiable and some bargaining points.  Knowing strategy, weakness and plus points always help.

Some key pointers include:

  1. Analyze -your source of power and know when to walk away –  the best source of power lies in an ability to walk away from bargaining.
  2. Listen – to what is being said, do not just assume – listen to the arguments being made.  Paraphrase and clarify where necessary.  Know where difficulties may lie in their stance.
  3. Trade off – where can you make concessions? Identify issues that the other party may value and the ones which you do not.
  4. Contingent – where penalties will be imposed or how events may unfold can be calculated in.  This becomes like a pilot test process.
  5. Rapport – what is the background history and level of trust.  Can this be established and built?

How Did Dish TV Network Use these skills in their Contractual Approach?

Dish Network TV obviously had to examine the scope of some of these questions when considering the need to re-negotiate contracts with certain TV Channels.  Certain demands of what they were wanting to be met and where they did not want to make an agreement were examined when they had to revise contractual agreements that had long been in place.

Why Renegotiate?

Renegotiation of contracts which were to be licensed with multiple other channels was made instead.  This time, it was decided that these contracts were to be entered into on a week-to-week basis.  A rapport was already in place. Majority of the disputes in the past and re-negotiations centered on programming or retransmission fees. Entering agreements this way, most possibly helps them gain greater control and leverage on when they want to be able to walk away from a contract without being bound to it on a long-term basis.

Some channels do not like to be at a point where an extension may not be a likelihood and do not enter those contracts for that reason.  This is a big change for what it used to have before, which was similar to the three-year contract.  Being able to hold accountability can give one party an upper hand when it comes to renewals.  Viewers also want to be kept out of any dispute and public image will matter.

These sorts of contracts can allow for gaining greater power but also require much time invested when it comes to re-entering contracts on a timely basis and can require scrutinization of terms and agreements over and over.  When disputes arise, they become programming disruptions.  There contracts also apply for channels in the Spanish language and have been subject to the most of the disruptions.  Continue reading ›

|

While it’s always a good idea to put agreements in writing, taking that step isn’t always enough to guarantee that everyone involved will continue to abide by the terms of the contract, even if they all sign their names to it. When one or more parties violates the agreed-upon terms, you can sue them for breach of contract and get the court to issue an injunction requiring them to abide by the terms of the contract, but sometimes even that isn’t enough. Below are just a few examples of what can happen when people insisted on having it their own way.

A Salesman’s Gotta Sell

John Osborne worked as a salesman selling business forms for Uarco, Inc. The employment agreement he signed with the company included a non-compete clause that said Osborne would not sell business forms for any of Uarco’s competitors. After Osborne’s employment with Uarco ended, he went to work selling similar business forms for one of Uarco’s competitors. Uarco sued him for breach of contract and succeeded in obtaining an injunction from the court that, in part, forbade Osborne from reaching out to certain customers of Uarco for a period of two years. But the injunction had a loophole that let Osborne sell to a customer of Uarco if the customer expressed a desire to purchase business forms in an open bid situation (meaning different vendors submit a request for proposal and the customer goes with the lowest price).

Uarco then accused Osborne of being in contempt of court by violating the injunction when he contacted Uarco customers. When the court looked into the accusations, it found that Osborne had violated the terms of the injunction more than 100 times. Osborne admitted to contempt on two counts but claimed the rest of the customers did not fall within the limitations of the court’s injunction against him. The court disagreed and imposed further injunctions of an additional 190 days against him, as well as monetary sanctions.

Osborne appealed that decision and the case went before the Supreme Court of Kansas, which upheld the lower court’s ruling of the extended injunction and also awarded Uarco almost $10,000 to cover their legal costs in filing the lawsuit and arguing their case and an additional $10,000 fine. Continue reading ›

Contact Information
Chicago Office
19 S LaSalle St #702
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: 630-333-0333
Mailing Address
17W220 22nd St #410
Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
Phone: 630-333-0333 Please direct all mail correspondence to our Oakbrook Terrace address.
Highland Park Office
189 Whistler Rd
Highland Park, IL 60035
Phone: 630-710-4990
We accept the following credit cards
Credit Cards Accepted
We accept payment via Venmo at: @L-A-LAW

Please direct all mail correspondence to our Oakbrook Terrace address.

Phone: 603-333-0333
Visit our site: chicagobusinesslawfirm.com

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, Lubin Austermuehle, P.C.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design