Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Do Your Discrimination Policies Go Far Enough?
Since 1998, when the United States Supreme Court issued what have become known as the Farragher and Ellerth cases, employers have been able to assert an affirmative defense to harassment cases that allege the creation of a hostile work environment by supervisory employees as long as the harassment did not result in a tangible job action for the complaining employee. The Ellerth Court offered as examples of a tangible job action “hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits.” Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 761.
Prior to Farragher and Ellerth, employers were strictly liable (ie, the employer could not disclaim responsibility) in all cases of hostile environment harassment by a supervisor. In Farragher and Ellerth, however, the Supreme Court reasoned that employers should only be held strictly liable for the actions of a supervisory employee who was exercising his or her official authority; employers whose supervisory employee was acting without official authority should be permitted to raise an affirmative defense. In its simplest terms, that affirmative defense requires a showing that 1) the employee unreasonably failed to report the offensive conduct, despite an adequate reporting mechanism set forth in a well-publicized policy that clearly prohibited harassment; and, 2) the employer took prompt, remedial measures upon learning of the offensive conduct to ensure that it would not continue or be repeated.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
How AI Has Affected PR
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.