Charlotte Employment Attorney - Strianese Law

The Strianese, PLLC was founded by Chris Strianese, a Charlotte based attorney who focuses his practice on employment law including but not limited to sexual harassment, wage and hour, and discrimination within the work place. He primarily represents wronged employees who have been fired for unlawful reasons or are currently experiencing harassment or discrimination in the workplace. Mr. Strianese represents all wronged employees from high level executives to office workers.

Mr. Strianese has made it a point to provide individualized attention to each and every one of his clients in order to protect their rights and remain focused on the case. While most discrimination and harassment cases can be settled through negotiation, if litigation is necessary, Mr. Strianese will provide the experience, expertise, and strategic thinking necessary in order to best represent you and protect your rights. You will work directly with Mr. Strianese on your case and will be updated and walked through the whole process.

Mr. Strianese has handled all types of employment cases for Fortune 500 companies, private equity firms, and small businesses. He is well accustomed to the typical defenses raised by employers during litigation and can easily counter those defenses. If you are interested in discussing your case with Mr. Strianese, visit his website and fill out the contact form for more information. 

Playwright David Adjmi wins New York infringement court case

A playwright who was accused of copyright infringement by lawyers representing the TV show "Three's Company" over his parody of 1970s sitcoms has won a victory in court.

Loretta A. Preska, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, ruled Tuesday that David Adjmi, whose play "3C" had a run at Rattlestick Playwrights Theatre in 2012, is protected under the doctrine of fair use.

"The play is a highly transformative parody of the television series that, although it appropriates a substantial amount of 'Three's Company,' is a drastic departure from the original that poses little risk to the market for the original," the judge wrote, noting that copyright law "is designed to foster creativity."

Adjmi had the backing of many theater community heavyweights, including Jon Robin Baitz, Stephen Sondheim, Tony Kushner, John Guare and Terrence McNally.

The play is about two girls — one a tomboy, the other a sexy ditz — and a guy who spontaneously become roommates in a rundown Santa Monica apartment after a wild party.

They clash with a dislikable landlord who makes offensive, homophobic jokes. The playwright is exploring the idea of a culture avoiding difficult issues and problems by retreating into sex and drugs.

5 arrested in protest inside Supreme Court

Protesters disrupted Supreme Court proceedings on Wednesday for the second time this year with shouted criticism of the court's previous rulings on campaign finance.

Supreme Court police swiftly removed five people from the courtroom after they rose, one after another, to interrupt the start of the court's session.

The advocacy group 99rise, which opposes the influence of money in elections, took responsibility for the protest, as it did for similar episodes in January and last year. The group said in a statement that six of its members took part Wednesday, though court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said only five people were arrested.

Arberg said all five have been charged under a law that prohibits making "a harangue or oration" or uttering "loud, threatening or abusive language" in the Supreme Court Building. They also were charged with conspiracy-related offenses and sent to a holding cell at Washington, D.C., police headquarters.

The first protester rose from his seat among spectators in the courtroom just after the justices took the bench at 10 a.m. "I rise to claim our democracy, one person, one vote," he said.

Chief Justice John Roberts initially joked that he didn't think the court's scheduled arguments in bankruptcy cases "would attract such attention." But Roberts turned serious as the protests continued and warned that anyone disrupting proceedings could be charged with criminal contempt.

In the two previous protests, at least one person from 99rise carried a camera and recorded the disruption in violation of the court's ban on cameras in the courtroom. The surreptitiously recorded video was later posted online.

The group said in a statement that the protest was tied to the one-year anniversary of the Supreme Court's ruling in McCutcheon v. FEC, in which the justices struck down the overall federal limit on individual campaign contributions. The anniversary is on Thursday, when the court will not be in session.

Spain court sentences man to 10 years for Codex theft

A Spanish court has sentenced a former electrician for Spain's famed Santiago de Compostela cathedral to 10 years in prison after convicting him of stealing a priceless 12th-century Codex Calixtinus, considered the first guide for Christians making the pilgrimage to venerate St. James.

In a ruling Wednesday, the court in A Coruna city convicted Jose Manuel Fernandez Castineiras of theft and money laundering.

Authorities found the richly-decorated Codex, which went missing in 2011, in his garage.

During the January trial, Castineiras, who is in his 60s, insisted he couldn't remember confessing to the theft.

Authorities who searched his home in 2012 also found other valuable religious works and recovered more than 1 million euros ($1.1 million).

Tens of thousands make the pilgrimage to Santiago each year.

Court says Chuck Yeager can sue Utah gun safe company

A federal appeals court says record-setting test pilot Chuck Yeager can sue a Utah gun safe company that named a line of safes after him.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled Tuesday that the 91-year-old can sue Fort Knox Security Products over an oral agreement from the 1980s that allowed the use of his name and picture in exchange for free safes.

The decision says the arrangement ended around 2008, after Yeager's wife started asking questions about it.

The court dismissed some claims but ruled that Yeager can sue over claims that the company kept using his likeness after the agreement ended. The company disputes that accusation.

Yeager served during World War II and became the first person to break the sound barrier in 1947.

Two justices once open to cameras in court now reconsider

Two Supreme Court justices who once seemed open to the idea of cameras in the courtroom said Monday they have reconsidered those views, dashing even faint hopes that April's historic arguments over gay marriage might be televised.

In separate appearances, Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor said allowing cameras might lead to grandstanding that could fundamentally change the nature of the high court.

Sotomayor told an audience in West Palm Beach, Florida, that cameras could change the behavior of both the justices and lawyers appearing at the court, who might succumb to "this temptation to use it as a stage rather than a courtroom."

"I am moving more closely to saying I think it might be a bad idea," she said.

During her confirmation hearings in 2009, Sotomayor told lawmakers she had a positive experience with cameras and would try to soften other justices' opposition to cameras.

Speaking at the University of Chicago's Institute of Politics, Kagan told an audience that she is "conflicted" over the issue and noted strong arguments on both sides.

Kagan said that when she used to argue cases before the court as Solicitor General, she wanted the public to see how well prepared the justices were for each case "and really look as though they are trying to get it right."

But Kagan said she is wary now of anything "that may upset the dynamic of the institution."

She pointed to Congress, which televises floor proceedings, saying lawmakers talk more in made-for-TV sound bites than to each other.

Anxiety over Supreme Court's latest dive into health care

Nearly five years after President Barack Obama signed his health care overhaul into law, its fate is yet again in the hands of the Supreme Court.

This time it's not just the White House and Democrats who have reason to be anxious. Republican lawmakers and governors won't escape the political fallout if the court invalidates insurance subsidies worth billions of dollars to people in more than 30 states.

Obama's law offers subsidized private insurance to people who don't have access to it on the job. Without financial assistance with their premiums, millions of those consumers would drop coverage.

And disruptions in the affected states don't end there. If droves of healthy people bail out of HealthCare.gov, residents buying individual policies outside the government market would face a jump in premiums. That's because self-pay customers are in the same insurance pool as the subsidized ones.

Health insurers spent millions to defeat the law as it was being debated. But the industry told the court last month that the subsidies are a key to making the insurance overhaul work. Withdrawing them would "make the situation worse than it was before" Congress passed the Affordable Care Act.

The debate over "Obamacare" was messy enough when just politics and ideology were involved. It gets really dicey with the well-being of millions of people in the balance. "It is not simply a function of law or ideology; there are practical impacts on high numbers of people," said Republican Mike Leavitt, a former federal health secretary.

The legal issues involve the leeway accorded to federal agencies in applying complex legislation. Opponents argue that the precise wording of the law only allows subsidies in states that have set up their own insurance markets, or exchanges. That would leave out most beneficiaries, who live in states where the federal government runs the exchanges. The administration and Democratic lawmakers who wrote the law say Congress' clear intent was to provide subsidies to people in every state.