In Part One, last month, the authors examined the <i>EEOC v. Sidley Austin</i> case and the issues raised therein. Part Two continues the discussion with the implications of being designated a 'bona fide' partner.

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 or she will not pursue a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in connection with an allegation of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation. <br>Recently, increased litigation activity by the EEOC signals renewed agency focus on severance arrangements that seek to limit a former employee's ability to participate in any manner in EEOC administrative proceedings.

Features

As we turn the calendar to 2007, law firm leaders will once again be able to tell their partners that their firm hit ' or exceeded ' budget and that their income will increase. That's the good news. <br>The bad news is that, as firms have grown more profitable and pushed harder on the drivers of their firms' economics, it is becoming difficult to identify ways to ensure that the double-digit increases in profitability will continue. After all, the economic model of law firms has only a handful of levers (rates, realization, leverage, utilization, expenses). Once firms pull as hard as possible on each lever, there is not much more they can do. For law firm leaders, managing the expectations of their partners will become a more difficult challenge, particularly since a good portion of those partners have come to expect double-digit increases in profitability each year.

Gamblers Take Aim at Internet Ban <br>Internet Mom's Kids Sued for Downloading Over 1000 Songs<br>Major Study Claims 1% of All Web Sites Sexually Explicit

Features

Several months ago, the New York attorney general filed suit in a New York state court seeking an injunction against Direct Revenue LLC enjoining the firm from secretly installing spyware or sending ads through already installed spyware. <i>New York v. Direct Revenue LLC</i>, No. 401325/06 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co.). The suit has resulted in public disclosure of some of the most reviled Internet marketing tactics by a company that recently claimed it had changed its evil ways and has resulted in allegations of financial connections to some 'good guy' Internet behemoths such as Yahoo, Vonage, MySpace and others.

Features

If a doctor's mistakes can be broadcast over the Internet for all the world to see, will he or she be more or less likely to settle a claim? What about plaintiffs? What are the implications for them should their suits against doctors and hospitals some day become public knowledge?<br>Government entities, private groups and even disgruntled private citizens are starting to use the Internet to broadcast their displeasure with what they see as 'dangerous doctors' or 'money-grubbing plaintiffs,' spreading the reach of the Web beyond the boundaries of the litigation itself by naming names of those who sue or are sued for medical malpractice.

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? <br>Certainly, an employee's abuse of a company's computer systems can raise a number of legal concerns ' not only for the individual but also for the corporation. For example, cases abound where the contents of employee e-mails, computer downloads and other electronic communications are used as evidence in claims of discrimination or harassment in the workplace. Central to such claims is proof that the employer failed to take appropriate steps to prevent ' and promptly correct ' the unwelcome conduct.

&#133;