FAMILY LAW/INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Legal Controversy over the “Theft” of the Biblical Story of Joseph in a Divorce Matter?
In this matter, the Plaintiff husband brought an action to divorce his wife for abandonment. In answer to the divorce papers, the wife also sought divorce but brought an additional counter-claim for theft of an academic article. Specifically, the wife seeks damages in the amount of $1 million dollars for the theft of an academic paper on the biblical story of Joseph that the wife alleges she co-wrote with her husband prior to marriage. The husband seeks dismissal of the wife's action to sue for any theft of the academic paper. A Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice, in Herskovitz v. Klein, 54828/09, (March 21, 2011), held that the action may be brought to sue the husband for the theft of an academic paper, but such action must be separated from the matrimonial, divorce action.
The article in question concerns a paper that the two parties co-authored, prior to their marriage, on the leadership of biblical Joseph, and which had then been rejected for publication by a journal. Subsequently, the parties married but then separated a few years later. The same year that the parties separated, the husband co-authored another article with a third party entitled, “The Biblical Story of Joseph: Lessons in Servant Leadership,” which was accepted for publication by another journal. In their divorce papers, the wife alleges theft of intellectual property, as she maintains the published article is identical to the article she wrote with her husband. The husband, on the other hand, submits that the two articles posit different thesis on the leadership of Joseph and represent different and distinct works. The husband also points to the wife's failure to continue to list the unpublished article as a “work in progress,” as evidence that she had no intent to make any advancements based on the unpublished article. The husband further argues that because neither article has commercial value, there is no basis to the wife's claim for one million dollars in damages.
The Court held that the two articles are not so “distinct,” as the husband claims, to warrant dismissal of the action; yet, the two articles are not “identical,” as the wife claims. Rather, the Court points out that “substantial similarities” do exist between the two articles – namely, the use of the biblical character of Joseph for a study in leadership qualities. However, the Court maintained that the divorce proceeding is not the proper forum for which to litigate this particular matter concerning the academic paper. The claim may proceed, but it must be severed from the divorce action.
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Whether Women Qualify as a “Class” in a Class Action Suit Based on Discrimination?
In its recent June 20, 2011 decision, the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court justices held that approximately 1.5 million women employees of Wal Mart did not qualify as a “class” in their class action suit against Wal Mart for discrimination. The plaintiffs were three women who represented approximately 1.5 million women employees, either current or former, of Wal Mart, alleging discrimination against women under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They claimed that Wal Mart discriminated against women in that local managers exercised their discretion over pay and promotions disproportionately in favor of men. The Court, however, ruled that the women did not qualify as a class that could bring this lawsuit because they did not prove any “common question of law or fact” among the 1.5 women employees. (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes et.al, 10-277).
The Court pointed to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23 (a) in support of its decision. Rule 23(a) outlines the requirements to satisfy a “class,” including the commonality requirement, existing questions of law or fact common to the class. The Court maintained that proof of common questions of law or fact showing an existence of a class of persons who have suffered the same injury was absent here. Plaintiffs' statistical evidence about pay and promotion disparities between men and women at the company, anecdotal reports of discrimination from about 120 of Wal-Mart’s female employees, and the testimony of a sociologist about Wal Mart's “culture” and personnel practices, was deemed as insufficient.
Although the Supreme Court's decision denied women the opportunity to sue Wal Mart for discrimination as a class, it never actually ruled on the issue of whether any gender discrimination actually took place. Thus, the decision does not preclude individual women employees from bringing forth actions against Wal Mart for discrimination.
Legal Controversy over the “Theft” of the Biblical Story of Joseph in a Divorce Matter?
In this matter, the Plaintiff husband brought an action to divorce his wife for abandonment. In answer to the divorce papers, the wife also sought divorce but brought an additional counter-claim for theft of an academic article. Specifically, the wife seeks damages in the amount of $1 million dollars for the theft of an academic paper on the biblical story of Joseph that the wife alleges she co-wrote with her husband prior to marriage. The husband seeks dismissal of the wife's action to sue for any theft of the academic paper. A Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice, in Herskovitz v. Klein, 54828/09, (March 21, 2011), held that the action may be brought to sue the husband for the theft of an academic paper, but such action must be separated from the matrimonial, divorce action.
The article in question concerns a paper that the two parties co-authored, prior to their marriage, on the leadership of biblical Joseph, and which had then been rejected for publication by a journal. Subsequently, the parties married but then separated a few years later. The same year that the parties separated, the husband co-authored another article with a third party entitled, “The Biblical Story of Joseph: Lessons in Servant Leadership,” which was accepted for publication by another journal. In their divorce papers, the wife alleges theft of intellectual property, as she maintains the published article is identical to the article she wrote with her husband. The husband, on the other hand, submits that the two articles posit different thesis on the leadership of Joseph and represent different and distinct works. The husband also points to the wife's failure to continue to list the unpublished article as a “work in progress,” as evidence that she had no intent to make any advancements based on the unpublished article. The husband further argues that because neither article has commercial value, there is no basis to the wife's claim for one million dollars in damages.
The Court held that the two articles are not so “distinct,” as the husband claims, to warrant dismissal of the action; yet, the two articles are not “identical,” as the wife claims. Rather, the Court points out that “substantial similarities” do exist between the two articles – namely, the use of the biblical character of Joseph for a study in leadership qualities. However, the Court maintained that the divorce proceeding is not the proper forum for which to litigate this particular matter concerning the academic paper. The claim may proceed, but it must be severed from the divorce action.
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Whether Women Qualify as a “Class” in a Class Action Suit Based on Discrimination?
In its recent June 20, 2011 decision, the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court justices held that approximately 1.5 million women employees of Wal Mart did not qualify as a “class” in their class action suit against Wal Mart for discrimination. The plaintiffs were three women who represented approximately 1.5 million women employees, either current or former, of Wal Mart, alleging discrimination against women under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They claimed that Wal Mart discriminated against women in that local managers exercised their discretion over pay and promotions disproportionately in favor of men. The Court, however, ruled that the women did not qualify as a class that could bring this lawsuit because they did not prove any “common question of law or fact” among the 1.5 women employees. (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes et.al, 10-277).
The Court pointed to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23 (a) in support of its decision. Rule 23(a) outlines the requirements to satisfy a “class,” including the commonality requirement, existing questions of law or fact common to the class. The Court maintained that proof of common questions of law or fact showing an existence of a class of persons who have suffered the same injury was absent here. Plaintiffs' statistical evidence about pay and promotion disparities between men and women at the company, anecdotal reports of discrimination from about 120 of Wal-Mart’s female employees, and the testimony of a sociologist about Wal Mart's “culture” and personnel practices, was deemed as insufficient.
Although the Supreme Court's decision denied women the opportunity to sue Wal Mart for discrimination as a class, it never actually ruled on the issue of whether any gender discrimination actually took place. Thus, the decision does not preclude individual women employees from bringing forth actions against Wal Mart for discrimination.
RSS Feed
