Beyond California
May 26, 2005
On Sept. 30, 2004, California enacted a law that requires employers who operate in California and who employ 50 or more persons to provide all supervisory employees 2 hours of sexual harassment training every 2 years. Employers must complete the first round of training for supervisors by Jan. 1, 2006. After that date, new supervisors must be trained within 6 months of obtaining a supervisory position. Employers are scrambling to ensure that they have trained all California-based supervisors by year's end. This article describes why employers should not focus simply on training supervisors in California, but in every state.
Friend or Foe?
May 26, 2005
Recent months have delivered to employers what could be seen as a nasty one-two punch. First, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) announced that it planned to focus its resources on "rooting out" systemic discrimination -- and unveiled proposed guidelines completely altering the way it will analyze potential compensation discrimination. The new guidelines, which require employers of a certain size to use a statistical tool called multiple regression analysis, will be enforced by a team of statisticians the OFCCP has newly hired to create the ominous-sounding Division of Statistical Analysis. Second, the recent Supreme Court decision allowing disparate impact claims in age cases could be interpreted as giving the green light to additional age-bias lawsuits by removing the hurdle of proving or even alleging intent. However, these changes will not necessarily have an adverse impact on employers, and may actually be helpful.
Grabbing the Headlines
May 26, 2005
No sexual harassment case has received as much attention in the press recently as the one brought against Fox News and television host Bill O'Reilly by former Fox producer Andrea Mackris. This case grabbed the headlines with almost as much fervor as did Anita Hill's claims against then-U.S. Supreme Court Justice nominee Clarence Thomas in 1994, which had previously been the most notorious of sexual harassment claims. The Mackris/O'Reilly case has frequently been compared with the Hill/Thomas case -- not only because of the cases' relative notoriety, but also because they involve similar allegations: that a subordinate employee was subject to verbal harassment.
What Happens to Chapter 11 Cases?
May 24, 2005
This Special Edition of <i>The Bankruptcy Strategist</i> is devoted entirely to the recently enacted "Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005," which makes the most sweeping changes to the Bankruptcy Code seen in the last 20 years (although the law does nothing to address some significant issues that have been much debated, such as asbestos, forum shopping, and pension liability). The legislation primarily takes aim at perceived consumer bankruptcy abuses, but will also affect numerous aspects of business bankruptcy practice. This article analyzes key changes to the Bankruptcy Code that will be important to most business bankruptcy participants. Other articles in this issue address in detail the changes related to cross-border insolvencies, executory contracts, financial contracts, investment bankers, and plan exclusivity. Neither we nor the other contributors to this edition have attempted to address the substantial changes affecting only individuals who file for Chapter 11 relief, or changes to the special provisions for "small business" and "single asset real estate" debtors, as those terms are defined in the Code.
Big Investment Banks Win Big in Congress
May 24, 2005
The major investment banks secured a big win with the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention & Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (the Act). They quietly convinced Congress to remove the strongest limitation in the Bankruptcy Code (' 101(14)) on a Chapter 11 debtor's employment of an investment banker. That prohibition, in effect since the Depression, had essentially prevented the debtor's retention of a banker for any of the debtor's outstanding securities The securities industry called the statutory ban "anti-competitive."
Litigation
April 28, 2005
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
Employment Legislation Update
April 27, 2005
Employers that obtain credit reports or conduct background checks on applicants or current employees must be aware of recent changes to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and amendments made to FCRA by the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACTA). FCRA imposes obligations on employers who procure "consumer reports" (defined to include information bearing on a consumer's credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics and mode of living) and/or "investigative consumer credit reports" (which include information obtained from personal interviews with neighbors, friends or associates) from a third-party consumer reporting agency for an employment purpose -- including hiring decisions and evaluations of employees for promotion, reassignment or retention. Employers that fail to comply with FCRA's obligations risk civil liability, federal agency action, and possible corresponding state action.
How to Avoid Class Litigation
April 27, 2005
In the past year, large settlements of "pattern or practice" employment discrimination claims against several major companies, and the largest civil rights class action suit in American history against Wal-Mart Stores, have prompted questions about what employers can do to avoid being the next target. This article lists key indicators in determining whether a company is in danger of class litigation.
