Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In two recent decisions, the District of Columbia United States Court of Appeals has ruled overbroad workplace policies unlawful, even when those policies did not expressly prohibit protected workplace discussions about terms and conditions of employment, and even when there was no evidence that the policies had been enforced to punish protected workplace discussions. This article discusses these decisions, and their implications for employers that have adopted, or are contemplating adoption of, workplace policies that might be deemed overbroad.
Features
Last month, we discussed voluntary and incentive-based wellness programs, which are usually offered to employees on a voluntary basis, with various incentives often added to foster continued participation. We went on to discuss mandatory programs, which a minority of employers provide to encourage employees to get healthier by providing extensive health care services ' but that also require certain conduct, such as giving up alcohol and tobacco. This month, we continue with an in-depth discussion of the risks associated with mandatory programs.
A hearing on whether to continue the temporary injunction of the Department of Homeland Security's new regulation regarding Social Security No-Match letters took place on Monday, Oct. 1, 2007 in San Francisco federal court. Judge Charles R. Breyer made his final ruling and issued a preliminary injunction preventing the government from enforcing the No-Match regulation. Following is an update.
Recent court decisions highlight the importance of continuing to be vigilant in monitoring and preventing harassment in the workplace. For example, most employers and labor and employment lawyers are aware that harassing conduct by supervisors will result in strict liability being attached to the employer. It appears clear, however, that courts are increasingly willing to impose strict liability for harassing conduct carried out not only by the highest supervisors, but by lower-level managers as well.
Features
Thus there are numerous options available to you as in-house counsel if you are faced with a preference action. Knowing how to act, and how quickly, might make the difference between hanging onto the funds you received prior to your clients' bankruptcy, and having to hand them all over to the trustee to be redistributed among all the creditors.
In the wake of corporate scandals and high-profile prosecutions, many companies have avoided prosecution or have otherwise negotiated reduced sanctions in recent years by cooperating with prosecutors or regulators and entering into agreements that often include accepting a monitor. The monitor generally continues to investigate and proposes further changes where appropriate, reporting directly to the government at the company's expense.
Features
Although a corporation obviously cannot be put in prison, saber-rattling by the government concerning a possible indictment is indeed a draconian threat. In January 2007, Sen. Arlen Spector (R-PA) introduced Senate Bill 186, the 'Attorney-Client Privilege Protection Act of 2007' ('S. 186'). If enacted, S. 186 would straightforwardly 'prohibit' U.S. Attorneys from conditioning any <i>civil or criminal</i> charge decision upon, or use in deciding whether an organization is 'cooperating' with the government, 'the provision of counsel to, or contribution to the legal defense fees or expenses of, an employee of that organization.' In July 2007, Rep. Robert C. Scott (D-VA) introduced House Bill 3013 ('H.R. 3013'), a virtually identical bill (and bearing the same name) in the House. Here's why.
Features
This edition of the Quarterly State Compliance Review looks at some legislation of interest to corporate lawyers that went into effect during the last three months, including amendments to Nevada's corporation and unincorporated entity laws. This edition also discusses recent decisions of interest from the courts of Delaware, New York and California.
Features
Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act ('ADA') as an attempt to provide physically and mentally disabled Americans with a means to combat a long history of discrimination in nearly all areas of civic life. To achieve this goal, Congress divided the Act into five titles, the first of which focuses exclusively on employment discrimination. While the statutory language and regulations seem straightforward, the corresponding legal realities to employers have caused many to come to the realization that 'even the most conscientious employer, without clear guidance as to what the [ADA] statute and implementing regulations require in a given situation, may find itself defending a lawsuit because of business decisions made in good faith, but adversely to an allegedly disabled individual.' 42 Am. Jur. 3d <i>Proof of Facts</i> Sec. 1 (2007).
Features
Recent rulings across the states.
