Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
As courts across the country continue to visit the issue of employment-at-will, the results show states continuing to chip away at the once mighty doctrine. Here's a look at one such case in Tennessee.
Many employers routinely conduct background checks on applicants and employees to verify their prior employment history. Oftentimes, an outside service is used to obtain the critical information and then provide a brief analysis as to its significance. However, as demonstrated in a decision from the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, both the employer and outside contractor can be sued for defamation ...
Features
Most in-house counsel know the types of inquiries that should trigger evidence preservation or collection protocols. Once there is reason to believe there will be litigation or investigation, the duty to preserve kicks in immediately. But what's next?
Delaware courts are beginning to analyze claims concerning the controversial practice of spring-loading options. Spring-loading is the granting of options just prior to the release of favorable company information (in the company's possession at the time of the grant). The options are granted at a market price on the day of the grant. They are said to be 'spring-loaded' because upon release of the favorable news, the stock price is expected to rise and the options would then become 'in-the-money.'
There are many reasons to insulate parent and sibling entities from known exposure to which a particular subsidiary is subject. These include, in addition to the tort and federal regulations at issue in the <i>Forsythe</i> and <i>Bestfoods</i> cases, mentioned herein, vulnerability to the taxes, regulation and jurisdiction of a state or foreign nation. Protecting against such vulnerabilities are an important task for corporate counsel. This article explains.
Features
This is the first in a series of articles discussing how in-house counsel can better manage litigation matters.
The United States Supreme Court was poised this term to decide an important issue arising under the Americans With Disabilities Act ('ADA') that has vexed employers for years. At issue was whether the ADA requires employers to reassign an employee who, due to a disability, can no longer perform the essential functions of his position, to a vacant, equivalent position for which he is qualified or whether the disabled employer must merely permit the employee to compete for such a position with other applicants. Unfortunately, the case of <i>Huber v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.</i> settled after the Supreme Court had granted certiorari to decide this issue, leaving an existing split among the circuits.
Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.
The Second Circuit's recent decision in <i>United States v. Cutler</i> cast a cloud over the question of how far a sentencing judge can depart from the so-called 'advisory' Sentencing Guidelines. In late December 2007, the Supreme Court appeared to have settled that issue. It remains to be seen how the Second Circuit's law will develop in this area.
On March 3, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of <i>Cuellar v. United States.</i> The decision, expected by the end of June, will interpret the 'intent to conceal' provision of the federal Anti-Money Laundering statutes.