Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Anti-harassment and diversity training can be a very effective tool in preventing claims of workplace discrimination and minimizing risk. It is essential, however, to be aware of the snares along the way: poorly executed training may be as good as no training at all, or worse. Properly executed, anti-harassment and diversity training holds out some hope for employers as a means to avoid the adage, all too familiar in the human resource community, that “no good deed goes unpunished.”
Training becomes a key piece of proof of the first prong of an employer's affirmative defense to liability in defending a hostile work environment claim. That is, an employer will want to be able to demonstrate that it exercised reasonable care to prevent harassment. (See Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 118 S. Ct. 2275 (1998). Keep in mind that in the case of alleged supervisory harassment it will be the employer's burden to prove that it undertook steps to prevent the harassment. To this end, be sure to retain all dated sign-in sheets setting forth the names of the employees in attendance, the materials provided, all relevant policies, biographical data on the trainer, and any written acknowledgement forms. The same evidence is also relevant to the third prong of the affirmative defense — that the complaining party failed to take advantage of safeguards and prevent harm — if it can be shown that the complaining party was provided training on the employer's policies regarding harassment and how to report concerns of the same. In this context the documentary data listed would become a critical part of the third-prong of the employer's defense. This is also why it is important that attendance is mandatory, not voluntary.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The real property transfer tax does not apply to all leases, and understanding the tax rules of the applicable jurisdiction can allow parties to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary tax liability.