Negligent hiring cases typically turn on whether a background check that was forgone would have helped to reveal an employee's propensity to erupt in violence or commit fraud. But a new burden of proof may be on the horizon.
Questions of personal jurisdiction, especially with respect to forum contacts arising out of Internet-related activities, have been litigated now for nearly a decade. During that time, courts have had occasion to analyze and rule upon all sorts of activities through the constitutional lenses of 'minimum contacts' and 'purposeful availment.' While most circuits appear to have developed relatively robust lines of authority to analyze whether personal jurisdiction exists where the type and nature of the contacts remain grounded in Internet-related activities, the jurisprudence of the Federal Circuit in this area is of relatively recent vintage. At least one district court appears to have concluded that the Federal Circuit's jurisprudence concerning personal jurisdiction and Web site interactivity remains unsettled. A district court sitting in Indiana noted that, '[t]he Supreme Court and Federal Circuit Court of Appeals have provided very little guidance regarding the concept of personal jurisdiction established through a party's Internet activities.' Aero Industries, Inc. v. Demonte Fabricating, Ltd., 396 F. Supp. 2d 961, 967 (S.D. Ind. 2005). This article examines recent patent cases by district courts where Internet-related forum contacts appeared to be present or significant to the courts' rulings on personal jurisdiction grounds.
Corporate officials, including CEOs, general counsel and human resource personnel, are often asked to determine whether to terminate the employment of an individual who is working for a company. In making that determination, the official frequently relies on information and/or recommendations provided by subordinates without conducting an independent investigation regarding the merits of the decision. A recent decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit highlights the risks that may accompany such a course of conduct.
The headlines are difficult to miss. The immigration debate is an issue to be contemplated and addressed by businesses, as politicians gear up for elections and Americans take sides in the deliberation. While immigration agents are arresting executives and employees for not complying with immigration law, and as the President of the United States is declaring that employers must be held accountable for their employees, even more restrictive and complex immigration regulations loom in the future. Under this flurry of activity, employers are left to decipher overly complicated, and often vague, laws and regulations in their efforts to find workers, fill open positions and keep operations running.
What types of employer conduct can constitute retaliation under Title VII? The answer to that question has changed significantly with a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision. On June 22, 2006, the Court issued its decision in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co v. White, expanding protections for employees who allege that they have suffered retaliation after making a complaint of discrimination or harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Just as everyone involved with executive compensation matters was settling in to address the impact of the new accounting rules under FAS 123R, the requirements of the stock exchanges, the deferred compensation rules under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 409A, the new Securities Exchange Commission's (SEC) proxy rules and the proper balance between adequate executive compensation and good governance, a new jolt came into play in the executive compensation arena.
How to submit invoices electronically over the Internet.
Unlike the vast majority of businesses in the United States, law firms generally operate under open systems that disclose the compensation of individual attorneys. The closed systems at Jones Day and Greenberg Traurig are major exceptions. But some observers say that law firms are moving toward closed systems as they function more like businesses and less like true partnerships.
Attorney attrition is expensive. Replacing departing colleagues means not only recruiting and hiring strong candidates, but also investing in training for the new hires. Cost estimates for replacing an associate are typically between 100% and 200% of the associate's annual salary. The soft costs ' lost institutional knowledge and potential morale problems ' may be even greater. And attorneys who leave with bad feelings about the firm can spread their ill will in the local legal community, or try to lure others to follow. A mass exodus, of course, can cripple a firm.
Legal ethics training has traditionally focused on attorneys. Law school training and continuing legal education are staples of the professional development require-ments for lawyers. Ethical training must be widened, however, due to tremendous growth in the num-ber of law office support personnel, the complexity of practicing in a multi-jurisdictional environment, and the ever-changing use of technology. Failure to implement an office-wide ethics plan with training for all employees can have practical and financial repercussions for lawyers.
