Commercial Law

Part One of this article discussed releases and covenants not to sue, the issues raised by the OWBPA (Older Workers Benefits Protection Act) and EEOC Regulations, and Thomforde v. International Business Machines, 406 F.3d 500 (8th Cir. 2005). The conclusion herein discusses the Syverson case and considerations for employers in preparing releases. Syverson v. International Business Machines, 461 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2006).

It is well settled that the company may not transfer the employee against her wishes to another job or force her to take a leave of absence. This rule was stated clearly by the Supreme Court in International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. Johnson Controls, Inc. So what to do?

The majority of employers know that employment discrimination based on gender is illegal. Many employers, however, are unaware that discrimination based on stereotypical views of women as 'mothers' and men as 'fathers' may also be actionable. Although caregivers are not a protected class under federal anti-discrimination statutes, courts are recognizing with increased frequency that inappropriate considerations and decisions about 'caregivers' might constitute unlawful treatment under various federal laws.

Congress just passed the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. Congress's stated hope in passing this sweeping legislation is that it will increase public confidence in the honesty of the political process. This article explains what the Act means.

The federal Sentencing Guidelines can lead to 'patently absurd' punishments in white-collar cases. United States v. Adelson, 441 F. Supp. 2d 506, 515 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (Rakoff, J.). But judicial discretion in sentencing, strongly reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Kimbrough v. United States, No. 06-6330 (Dec. 10, 2007), and Gall v. United States, No. 06-7949 (Dec. 10, 2007), has opened an important avenue for advocacy in business crime cases.

In 2007, we learned a lot from myriad authors and our fabulous regular columnists. As with past practice, I am going to give our readership the pleasure of having the opportunity to enjoy reading one article from each of the past 12 months. In this issue we will feature January up to and including July. The February issue will continue highlighting one article from each of the August to December issues.

Part One of this series discussed subleasing from the perspective of the Prime Landlord. This second installment addresses the issue from the Sublandlord's perspective.

In this month's installment, we focus on some of the special issues facing equipment leasing as a result of the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Atlantic Research Corporation. We recommend some steps in order to address the increased litigation and liability risks facing owners and lessors of equipment, risks that few have addressed.