Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Background Checks: The New Burden of Proof
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.
In 2005, a lawsuit was filed that alleges that Federal Express (FedEx) failed to ferret out a sex offender who molested a boy he met at work. FedEx claims his criminal record was clean. The boy's attorney, Neal Rogan, said: 'That person is either lying or Federal Express is wildly incompetent in how they do background checks.'
The FedEx case originating in Connecticut, Doe et al v. Federal Express Corporation et al, is likely to be the first that focuses on how, not if, criminal records are searched. If so, conducting a cursory scan in order to keep costs down and then claiming compliance will be riskier than ever. In addition, not understanding the nuances of the backend processes of background checks can leave employers in the dark and lead to expensive litigation. For instance, relying on state registries created under Megan's Law to screen employees and contractors for sexual offenses prior to hire is like expecting 100% of candidates to come clean on their job application. Under current laws, sex offenders are required to notify the chief of police, sheriff or campus police when relocating. But, not surprisingly, non-compliance is high ' in some states, studies have shown that up to 40% of sex offenders are missing. Compounding the problem, states differ in how they define sex crimes. As a result, non-compliant sex offenders can crisscross the country underneath the radar screen while States operate in silos without sharing information and responsibility.
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
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.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?