Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Internet Job Applications
Regulations established by the Labor Department's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) require covered federal contractors and subcontractors to collect information about the gender, race and ethnicity of each “applicant” for employment. On Oct. 7, the OFCCP issued a final rule that adds a definition of “Internet applicant” and requires contractors to collect gender, race, and ethnicity information from certain individuals who apply through the Internet. 41 C.F.R. Part 60-1.
The final rule, which will take effect in February 2006, applies to “jobs for which the contractor accepts expression of interest via the Internet and related technologies, such as e-mail, commercial and internal resume databanks, and employer Web sites.” Existing record-keeping standards still apply for those positions for which the contractor does not use the Internet or related technologies, and does not accept any electronic submissions.
In response to comments on the proposal, the final rule incorporates several minor modifications to the definition of Internet applicant. The final rules state that to be considered an “Internet applicant,” an individual must meet four criteria:
- The individual submits an ex-pression of interest in employment through the Internet or related technologies;
- The contractor considers the individual for a particular position;
- The individual's expression of interest indicates that he or she possesses the basic qualifications for the position; and
- The individual at no point in the selection process prior to receiving an offer of employment from the contractor, removes himself or herself from further consideration or otherwise indicates that he or she is no longer interested in employment in the position.
Contractors must identify “where possible, the gender, race, and ethnicity of each applicant or Internet applicant … whichever is applicable to the particular position.”
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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.
The Article 8 Opt In
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.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.