Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Part One of this article described the background, key provisions and legal challenges to the 'No-Match' regulations. The conclusion below offers strategies for employers.
Strategies for Employers
Pending a resolution to the legal challenges to the new regulation, employers face uncertainty regarding the proper response to a 'no-match' letter and the extent to which they may be subject to discrimination claims for their actions. If an employer follows the procedures provided in the new regulation, DHS will not allege that the employer had 'constructive knowledge' it was employing an illegal worker. If an employer chooses to terminate an employee after following these procedures ' and has followed the same procedures for all its employees with 'no matches' regardless of race or ethnicity ' the termination will not be considered a civil rights violation by the Federal Government. While this 'safe harbor' does not immunize an employer from an individual's claims of discrimination under the INA (8 U.S.C.
' 1324b) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. ' 2000e), careful application of the safe harbor procedures to all employees should provide an effective defense to any such claims. Employers should consider implementing the following guidelines:
Respond to 'No-Match' Letters
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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.