Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
An umbrella insurance policy that covers a company's employees while "acting within their duties" should cover a worker who drove out of town on a weekend in search of a company cell phone he'd lost -- even if he stopped for personal errands on the way home, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has ruled.
Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.
National cases of interest to your practice.
Although executive compensation has been the subject of evolving reform for several years, the bright spotlight of public attention is now focused on this issue, due in part to the bursting of the stock market bubble, the collapse of Enron, and a number of other highly publicized corporate scandals. The image of executives enjoying excessive compensation packages as revenues and earnings decline, and stock values of the companies they manage plummet, is a dangerously common stereotype.
Features
Bullying isn't just a playground issue. In an era of declining unionization, job insecurity, and the global profit squeeze, bullying has become a serious workplace problem, even though workplace bullies usually prefer memos, informal disciplinary meetings and grinding criticism to spitballs. Left unchecked, on-the-job abuse adversely affects both employers and employees. Current legal theories, though, are inadequate to address this recent phenomenon.
Features
Recent cases of importance to your practice.
Major investors in companies that commit violations of the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act may not be immune to liability, according to a federal court sitting in the Southern District of New York. <i>Vogt v. Greenmarine Holding, LLC</i>, No. 02 Civ. 2059 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 1, 2004). Relying on Department of Labor (DOL) regulations, the court denied a motion to dismiss the claims of a class of plaintiffs who were terminated by a bankrupt company against the investors in the bankrupt entity.
Features
National rulings of importance to you and your practice.
Recently, a unanimous, seven-member, United States Supreme Court held that the only relevant question on summary judgment in an action alleging disparate treatment under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) was whether there was sufficient evidence from which a jury could conclude that an employer made its decision based on an employee's status as disabled, notwithstanding the employer's proffered explanation. <i>Raytheon Company v. Hernandez</i>, 504 US __ , 124 S.Ct. 513 (2003). The Court further held that the employer's unwritten policy against rehiring former employees who were terminated for any violation of its misconduct rules was a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason under the ADA. This case briefing discusses the Court's opinion in <i>Raytheon</i>, and the decision's implications for employers.
Features
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.