A few weeks ago, I sketched out the high-profile breach of contract dispute between Keith Olbermann and former Vice President Al Gore’s cable TV network, Current TV.

Since then, Current TV has added a new talk show to be hosted by Joy Behar, and on-air host Cenk Uygur has obliquely responded to some of Olbermann’s criticisms that were made public by the filing of Olbermann’s lawsuit.  (Q: “Have you talked to Keith Olbermann since he left the network?”  A:  “Did I talk to Keith Olbermann before he left the network?  The answer to your question is no.”)  Oh, and Olbermann’s Countdown blog continues to be hosted on Current TV's website, although it (obviously) has not been updated since March 29, 2012 – Olbermann’s last day on the air.

Last time, I highlighted the six breaches of contract alleged by Current that, if material and uncured, might justify Current’s decision to terminate Olbermann without paying him the nearly $40 million left on his contract.

• Breach of Contract

• A federal trial court in Minnesota has dismissed an antitrust action filed by former football players against the NFL.  The players alleged that the NFL is monopolizing the market of their likenesses by using historical game footage featuring the players in promotional videos.  The court distinguished the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in American Needle, Inc. v. NFL,saying that the former football players failed to allege concerted action between the NFL and the teams that is illegal under the Sherman Act.  The court suggested that, even though the antitrust action would not go forward, the players may have claims against the NFL for violating their right of publicity.   

• The Inbox

In my last post, I made the case that new social media haven’t changed the issues that come up in legal disputes between companies and high-ranking employees.  But social media can add some new twists.  For instance, are a company’s Twitter followers the equivalent of a confidential client list, such that you would be “misappropriating” a company “trade secret” if you left and took the list with you? 

• Confidentiality
• Social Media
• Trade Secrets

Twitter and other social media may be transforming our world, but they haven’t changed laws and company policies against disclosing sensitive company information.  Take the recent firing – reported in The Inbox – by women’s clothing retailer Francesca’s Holdings Corp. of its CFO, Gene Morphis.

• Confidentiality
• Social Media
• Trade Secrets

For a high-level executive leaving a company under less-than-ideal conditions, it’s as common as handing in keys to security and shutting down the computer for the last time.  In exchange for a severance payment, the executive is asked to sign the typical general release: “I hereby release my employer from any claims, liabilities, demands, or causes of action . . .”

Unsurprisingly, once an employee signs a general release, if he later sues, he is likely to face a quick motion to dismiss.  

• Motions to Dismiss
• Releases
• Severance Agreements

The latest developments in suits by suits:

• When Brian Wittenstein left his job as talent coordinator at Total Nonstop Action (TNA) Wrestling for TNA’s competitor, World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE), he apparently took a lot of TNA confidential information with him.  Now TNA is brawling with WWE and Wittenstein in court.   TNA’s lawsuit acknowledges that WWE told TNA that Wittenstein had given it the confidential information and fired him.  But TNA alleges that WWE conspired with Wittenstein to get the documents, delayed for three weeks before it told TNA about the disclosures, and is now using the secret details of Nature Boy Ric Flair’s contract to solicit him to join WWE.  PWInsider.com.

• Breach of Contract
• Confidentiality
• Summary Judgment
• The Inbox

A key question looming over any lawsuit is, "Will the case go to trial?" Or, as lawyers usually put the issue, "Will the case survive summary judgment?" (For any laypeople reading this, summary judgment is a procedure for disposing of cases prior to trial if there are no meaningful disputes about the important facts—as lawyers put it, no “genuine issues of material fact.”)  Last week, a New York appellate court affirmed a grant of summary judgment against a urologist’s discrimination claim, holding that his employer successfully presented evidence of legitimate reasons for its adverse actions against him.  Melman v. Montefiore Med. Ctr., 2012 N.Y. Slip. Op. 04111 (May 29, 2012).  The Melman decision shows how judges can agree on how to decide whether to grant summary judgment on such claims, yet still disagree on whether summary judgment ought to be granted.

• Discrimination
• Summary Judgment

I need to start off with a confession: my name is Bill and I’m an insurance lawyer.  (“Welcome, Bill”).  I’m going to be writing about insurance as it applies to employment-related disputes.  Even though you may think insurance is a very dry subject, I promise to make it as interesting as I can – although there will be no dancing green lizards in any of these posts.  And, if you work for (or defend) a company that can face suits by employees, you may find these posts to be interesting food for thought when it comes to protecting your corporate bottom line from those suits.  (As always, though, whether an individual dispute is insured or not is a very fact-specific inquiry that depends on the language of the policy and the facts at issue – your mileage may vary, as they say).

• D&O
• Executive Compensation
• Insurance

Now here’s some #@%! thought-provoking career advice for executives and the people that hire them: cursing at work (or “cussin” as my southern in-laws say) can cut both ways for your career, as reported here in the Wall Street Journal. 

This week in suits by suits (and jerseys):

• Ellen Pao, a partner in the Silicon Valley venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers has filed a lawsuit alleging sexual discrimination and retaliation.  Pao alleges that she was pressured to have sex with one partner and propositioned by another.  According to Pao, when she reported her complaints to the firm's senior partnership, they retaliated by giving her a smaller share of firm profits, removing her from the board of a startup, and tried to banish her to their China office.

• Discrimination
• The Inbox