Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
New Rule on 'Internet Applicant'
The Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) oversees compliance with the equal opportunity and affirmative action requirements applicable to all government contractors. The OFCCP is charged with enforcing Executive Order 11246, which prohibits federal contractors from discriminating against applicants on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The Order also requires contractors to use affirmative action so that equal opportunity is available for all phases of employment. As such, contractors must retain all applicant-related company records as well as other employment records. In particular, contractors are required to maintain records of 'applicant flow data' by soliciting gender, race and ethnicity information from all applicants. If a contractor fails to comply with the rules issued by the OFCCP, it will be subject to disciplinary action, ranging from citations and economic fines to debarment.
When the requirement to retain applicant data was first instituted in 1965, virtually all applicants applied by traditional methods, ie, in person by completing a job application or submitting a resume with a letter of interest. Thus, the retention of visual data regarding an applicant's race, gender, and ethnicity was a relatively manageable project. With the advent and increased use of computers, including personal computers, the vast majority of job applicants now interface with potential employers via the Internet or through electronic data transmissions such as e-mail.
The OFCCP's New Rule
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.