Eyes On Equality and Opportunity
August 31, 2004
This year, on the second of July, I had the privilege of joining President Bush at a White House ceremony in which he led our Nation's observances of the 40th anniversary of one of the most sweeping and influential pieces of legislation in our history: the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is the Act which, for the first time in U.S. history, addressed discrimination in voting, education, public accommodations, federal programs and employment. This is also the Act that established the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which opened its doors exactly one year later. Thanks to this landmark piece of legislation, it became illegal under federal law to discriminate in employment on the bases of race, color, sex, national origin, and religion. Since that time, the Commission has played a pivotal and preeminent role in preventing and eradicating discrimination in the workplace. Passage of the Civil Rights Act was truly a historic feat, but one that did not come easily.
The Ties That Bind
August 31, 2004
It's no secret that over the last decade, employees have been able to obtain large damages awards from employers in Title VII claims. Accusations of glass ceilings and racial and sexual harassment, for instance, are regularly splashed across headlines. Juries often see a sympathetic plaintiff and an employer with deep pockets. The prospect of a runaway jury is a prime motivation for employers to seek mandatory arbitration of these claims. Arbitration can in some cases reduce the costs of litigation, provide greater confidentiality, and provide a decision that is more predictable and less charged with emotion. There has been much controversy over so-called mandatory arbitration agreements, but a number of Supreme Court decisions in the last two decades have substantially refined the law in this area since the seminal case of <i>Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co.</i>
Documentation and Other Effective Ways to Avoid Liability for Discrimination
August 31, 2004
As Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the primary federal discrimination law) celebrates its 40th anniversary, the method of proving a discrimination claim has greatly evolved. Virtually gone are the "smoking gun" statements using the "n-word," advertisements for applicants of a certain sex, or statements that individuals over a certain age aren't qualified to apply for a particular job. Although the world hasn't reached an era of perfection, blatant discriminatory expressions or policies are comparatively infrequent in modern discrimination litigation.
Sexual Harassment
August 31, 2004
The comedian George Carlin once asked, "If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done?" A similar question arises in the context of sexual harassment: If a supervisor demands sexual favors of his subordinate and she silently acquiesces to keep her job, does she have a claim of sexual harassment against her employer? Despite the Supreme Court's many pronouncements on sexual harassment, the answer to that precise question is still unresolved.
Patent Licensing: A Checklist
August 31, 2004
Intellectual property portfolio management is an essential part of any tech company's business strategy. Part of the management strategy must include implementation…
Quarterly State Compliance Review
August 31, 2004
The summer months are usually a busy time for lawyers who track changes to state corporation statutes to make sure their corporate clients are in compliance. This summer has been no different, as many states enacted amendments to their corporation codes that went into effect in July and August. This edition of the Quarterly State Compliance Review highlights several of these amendments. This edition also looks at some recent cases of interest.
Internal Information Controls: Corporate Accountability
August 31, 2004
The swift enactment of Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) in the wake of numerous corporate scandals brought at least as many questions as solutions for executives charged with ensuring corporate compliance with SOX's many provisions. As the various compliance deadlines for SOX draw near or expire and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) continues to release rules and guidelines, even more questions emerge, requiring executives to quickly gain familiarity with otherwise unfamiliar topics in order to avoid the potential liability associated with violations of the law. One such topic is the security and control of financial information.
The Future of Investment Company Governance
August 31, 2004
In the wake of the market timing and late trading scandals in the investment company industry, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC or "Commission") recently adopted rules and rule amendments designed to enhance the governance practices of registered investment companies ("funds"). In an effort to protect shareholders and reduce conflicts of interest between fund boards and fund investment advisers, the SEC has adopted rules that, among other things, proscribe the composition of and processes for fund boards, increase the required disclosure regarding approval of investment advisory contracts and create the position of fund chief compliance officer (CCO) who reports to the board. This article addresses the responsibilities fund boards will face in the wake of these new rules.
