Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
In this age of regulatory and prosecutorial focus on corporate compliance, companies increasingly are relying on special outside counsel to conduct internal investigations into potential wrongdoing. Sometimes, these investigations are prophylactic: A company may want to understand the consequences of its current hiring practices so it can develop standard operating procedures to better ensure compliance with anti-discrimination laws. Because this sort of proactive, self-reflective investigation generally proceeds without outside scrutiny, counsel has the time and space to conduct a deliberate investigation.
In the new age of the whistleblower, an employment lawyer who one day advises on a routine employee discipline or discharge may the next day find him- or herself directing a multi-disciplinary investigation of alleged corporate malfeasance, guiding a team of forensic accountants, private investigators, and public relations experts.
Features
Although difficult to imagine, your best worker may hold the key to your company's worst security nightmare. Technologically armed employees who routinely use BlackBerry devices, personal digital assistants, laptops, and tiny flash drives to transport critical information to and from the office can wreak havoc on a corporation '' with no intention to do so.
When involuntary employment terminations become necessary, employers often seek protection from possible post-employment claims by conditioning severance pay on the signing of a general release and agreement not to sue. As a general rule, such waivers are enforceable if they are 'knowing and voluntary.' Less clear, however, is under what circumstances an employer may condition severance payments on a promise by the departing employee that he/she will not pursue a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in connection with an allegation of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation.
What are the risks for employers in instances where employees use company computers to access, view, download, store and possibly forward pornography or engage in illegal activities? How can corporate counsel both prevent these abuses and handle investigations if they suspect some kind of prohibited conduct is occurring in the workplace?
Features
Understandably, companies have become more sensitive about protecting confidential, proprietary business information from disclosure to competitors and others outside the company. A recent ruling by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, <i>Venetian Casino Report v. EEOC</i>, 2006 WL 2806568 (D.D. Cir. 2006), demonstrates that such disclosures may occur in the most unexpected ways.
Features
Now that the holiday season is over, employers may be facing fallout from their holiday parties. Although a review of recent cases asserting social host and workers' compensation liability reveals few reported decisions, there is likely no corresponding reduction in risk, and the increasing number of employers hosting holiday parties in recent years prompts an analysis of the challenges employers face in planning their annual holiday parties. It is not too soon to plan for next year's celebrations, while the experience from this year is fresh. This article discusses illustrative cases and suggests a number of concrete steps employers may wish to consider to reduce injuries and potential liabilities in planning their next holiday parties.
Features
It used to be that an employee desiring to steal $2 million from your company would have a hard time doing so unnoticed. Today, that employee can do so undetected while having a casual conversation with you in the office. Unfortunately, in the current environment, the legal system is not forgiving toward companies that take a more relaxed approach with respect to protecting their own sensitive information.
Features
On Sept. 26, the Employee Benefits Security Administration of the Department of Labor (department) issued proposed regulations implementing amendments to ' 404(c) of the Employee Retirement Income Securities Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA).(The proposed regulations are at 29 CFR ' 550.404c-5.) These amendments were made by ' 624 of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (the act) and provide relief to fiduciaries of participant-directed individual account plans where, in the absence of investment directions from a participant, the plan invests such participant's assets in a 'qualified default investment alternative.'