Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Search

We found 1,060 results for "Employment Law Strategist"...

Movers & Shakers
June 28, 2007
Who's doing what; who's going where.
Reduce Workers' Compensation Costs
June 28, 2007
Unfortunately, the typical employer's focus on total workers' compensation claims costs from one year to the next is incomplete and shortsighted. It fails to recognize or measure what is driving the claim costs. If the average medical cost per claim increased, was it simply a matter of medical inflation or did it have anything to do with something the employer could control? If it went down was it luck or a result of the employer's actions? What is needed are tangible and measurable metrics of factors driving claims costs. This focus has several advantages. First, it inherently takes a long-term view enabling employers to understand the underlying circumstances and conditions that are driving up work-related injury costs. Second, it isolates measures of the value of the employer's actions. This approach is much more than a difference in semantics; it not only will drive decisions in a different direction but it may also entail significant changes in an organization's management of Workers' Compensation.
Securities Industry Employment Disputes
June 28, 2007
Author Carol A. Wittenberg, who has served on the Major League Baseball/Players' Association salary arbitration panel for the past eight years, as well as mediating and arbitrating numerous financial disputes in the securities industry, explains the different methods of arbitration that work--and do not work--in the volatile securities industry.
Sexual Harassment Victims and the 'Reasonableness' Equation
June 28, 2007
When a supervisor is identified in a lawsuit as the alleged harasser, the employer may still avoid liability, under certain circumstances, as long as the harassment did not result in a 'tangible employment action.' To this end, most, if not all, employers are intimately familiar with the U.S. Supreme Court's <i>Faragher</i> and <i>Ellerth</i> decisions issued in 1998. Yet during the past eight years since the decisions, employers have faced the brunt of scrutiny from courts evaluating the application of this affirmative defense.
Supreme Court Limits Time Frame for Filing EEOC Claims
June 28, 2007
On May 29, the Supreme Court made it significantly easier for employers to defend against Title VII workplace discrimination claims that are based on long-ago decisions about salary and raises. By a 5-4 vote, the Court said that employees claiming they received disparate treatment based on gender or race must do so within 180 days of the original discriminatory action ' not within 180 days of their last paycheck. Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire &amp; Rubber Co., No. 05-1074.
The EEOC Is Thinking Big
June 28, 2007
Like most government agencies, however, the EEOC faces significant obstacles. Its budget is rigorously scrutinized each year. Staffing is down and the backlog of individual discrimination charges is up. Concerned members of Congress have petitioned key House appropriators for funding increases to boost the organization's frontline staffing. In light of all of this, newly appointed EEOC chair Naomi Earp has her work cut out for her. As Earp succinctly stated, '[o]ur challenge in 2007 is to make the most effective and efficient use of agency resources.' In other words, the EEOC must get more bang for its buck to remain effective. Enter the agency's new Systemic Discrimination Initiative. This two-part article discusses how EEOC plans to implement the Initiative.
<b><i>Online Exclusive: </b></i>Supreme Court Hands Gift to Employers
May 29, 2007
The Supreme Court on May 29 made it significantly easier for employers to defend against Title VII workplace discrimination claims that are based on long-ago decisions about salary and raises.
Verdicts
May 29, 2007
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
Movers & Shakers
May 29, 2007
Who's moving where, who's doing what.
Rethinking Mandatory Arbitration of Employment Disputes
May 29, 2007
For a number of reasons discussed below, employers truly interested in turning back the clock on the 1991 amendments to Title VII would be well served to cease using mandatory arbitration agreements and instead have their employees execute waivers of their right to jury trials. It is juries that employers generally fear, not the courts themselves. Prior to the 1991 amendments, employers felt no imperative to exempt themselves from the civil justice system available in the courts. Thus, employers do not now need to flee the court system altogether in order to avoid jury trials, and there is certainly no reason for them to require their employees to agree to the wholesale replacement of court litigation with mandatory arbitration.

MOST POPULAR STORIES

  • Strategic Uses of a Rule 2004 Exam
    While most bankruptcy practitioners are familiar with the basic concepts behind the Rule 2004 exam, some are less familiar with the procedural intricacies of obtaining, conducting, and responding to the exam ' intricacies that often involve practices and procedures adapted from civil discovery that are beyond the scope of pure bankruptcy practice. This article explains.
    Read More ›
  • Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
    With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
    Read More ›
  • Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
    This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
    Read More ›