Features
National Litigation Hotline
National rulings you need to know.
Features
Recent Developments from Around the States
Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.
Features
Labor Law Update
A rundown of significant recent developments in labor law.
NY High Court Must Clarify Employee Choice Doctrine
A federal appeals court has put a $2.9 million employment lawsuit by a former investment banker on hold until the New York Court of Appeals can answer an undecided question of state law.
Seven Reasons Why Mediating Employment Disputes Is a Good Idea
The explosion of employment claims in this country has resulted in an increased focus on resolving employment disputes prior to trial, in particular through mediation. Unfortunately, businesses and their managers often fail to appreciate why employment matters are particularly well-suited to mediation. This, in turn, discourages parties from participating meaningfully in mediation. The following article examines seven compelling reasons why mediation is such an attractive and viable option for prospective litigants.
Features
National Litigation Hotline
Recent rulings for your review.
Features
Recent Developments from Around the States
National cases of interest to you and your practice.
Whistleblower Case Invokes Employment Rule Exception
Many have noted the unanticipated consequences of Sarbanes Oxley's (SOX) whistleblower protection. One significant question has been how, in light of the statute's remedial nature but its focus on remedying securities fraud, courts should construe its definition of protected activity. In particular, courts (and the Department of Labor administrative law judges who generally hear these cases at the outset) have struggled with SOX's requirement that to be a protected whistleblower, the employee must complain about conduct that he or she 'reasonably believes constitutes a violation of ' any rule or regulation of the [SEC], or any provision of Federal law relating to fraud against shareholders' (<i>see</i> 18 U.S.C. ' 1514A).
Features
Supreme Court: Title VII Employee Threshold Does Not Determine Jurisdiction
The United States Supreme Court has resolved a significant issue regarding coverage under Title VII: whether the 15-employee threshold for determining whether an individual or entity is an 'employer' covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a substantive element of plaintiff's claim for relief, or a jurisdictional issue. (Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., No. 04-944 (2006)). In Arbaugh, the Supreme Court, reversing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, held that the 15-employee threshold is an element of a plaintiff's claim that must be challenged prior to trial on the merits. The Supreme Court's decision is significant because evaluating the number of employees as a substantive issue would allow a federal court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and to retain discretion to hear pendent state law claims even if it dismisses the federal claims for failure to state a claim.
Features
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.
Need Help?
- Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
- Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.
MOST POPULAR STORIES
- Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About ItWhy is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?Read More ›
- Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the RoughThere 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.Read More ›
- Blockchain Domains: New Developments for Brand OwnersBlockchain domain names offer decentralized alternatives to traditional DNS-based domain names, promising enhanced security, privacy and censorship resistance. However, these benefits come with significant challenges, particularly for brand owners seeking to protect their trademarks in these new digital spaces.Read More ›
- Trying to Determine Rights in Pre-1972 Sound RecordingsAudio recordings of speech, musical instruments or any other sounds created before Feb. 15, 1972, are treated very differently from other recorded sounds under U.S. law. Each of the 50 states is free to apply its own rules to the protection of audio sound recordings made before Feb. 15, 1972, and may continue to do so for the next 54 years. As a consequence, the scope of protection for pre-1972 sound recordings is inconsistent from state to state, often vague and sometimes difficult to discern.Read More ›
- Disavowals of Liability Do Not Disembowel Coverage: Liability Settlements and Insurance CoverageLiability insurance policies apply where the insured is liable for bodily injury, property damage, or wrongful acts (depending on the policy). What happens, however, when the policyholder denies that any injury or wrongdoing took place? Does that mean that insurance is not applicable?Read More ›