Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In recent years, there has been growing awareness about the serious and sometimes tragic effects of bullying. It is a serious concern on social media, in schools, and at work. Consequently, 26 states have considered adopting laws to address what some have called a “silent epidemic” in the workplace. While no state, or the federal government, has adopted laws explicitly outlawing bullying in the private sector, employers are well advised to proactively take steps to prevent workplace bullying.
In the States
As of Jan. 1, 2015, California requires supervisory employees to receive training about abusive conduct. Tennessee anti-bullying policies for public employers went into effect in March. Other states will likely follow California's and Tennessee's lead by augmenting existing laws or passing new ones to address bullying. Even if there is no specific law about bullying in your state, employers may still be liable under existing hostile workplace, harassment, or discrimination laws. Independent of any legal obligation to do so, employers should endeavor to eliminate bullying in the workplace because of the negative impact it has on business. Bullying leads to exposure to claims and liability, decreased productivity, diminished morale, absenteeism and unwanted turnover of skilled employees.
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.
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.
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.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?