Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Employers often are faced with tricky legal dilemmas when employees ask to display religious symbols and take time off for religious observance. Can an employer reject an applicant who insists on wearing head coverings or religious jewelry with her uniform? Can an employee be forced to work Christmas Eve ' one of the busiest retail days of the year ' if he wants to attend a Catholic mass? Does it matter if the job is security related? The most common religious request by retail employees is time off for a religious holiday, followed by requests to be excused from a dress code. Recent developments in both legislation and case law suggest that employers will have to handle these requests with increased sensitivity, flexibility, and creativity. Employers should only deny a religious accommodation when it would cause a quantifiable undue burden.
Increased Enforcement Efforts by the EEOC
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The Second Circuit affirmed the lower courts' judgment that a "transfer made … in connection with a securities contract … by a qualifying financial institution" was entitled "to the protection of ... §546 (e)'s safe harbor ...."