Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Search

We found 1,059 results for "Employment Law Strategist"...

Recent Developments from Around the States
April 27, 2006
Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.
Labor Law Update
April 27, 2006
A rundown of significant recent developments in labor law.
NY High Court Must Clarify Employee Choice Doctrine
April 27, 2006
A federal appeals court has put a $2.9 million employment lawsuit by a former investment banker on hold until the New York Court of Appeals can answer an undecided question of state law.
Seven Reasons Why Mediating Employment Disputes Is a Good Idea
April 27, 2006
The explosion of employment claims in this country has resulted in an increased focus on resolving employment disputes prior to trial, in particular through mediation. Unfortunately, businesses and their managers often fail to appreciate why employment matters are particularly well-suited to mediation. This, in turn, discourages parties from participating meaningfully in mediation. The following article examines seven compelling reasons why mediation is such an attractive and viable option for prospective litigants.
National Litigation Hotline
March 29, 2006
Recent rulings for your review.
Recent Developments from Around the States
March 29, 2006
National cases of interest to you and your practice.
Whistleblower Case Invokes Employment Rule Exception
March 29, 2006
Many have noted the unanticipated consequences of Sarbanes Oxley's (SOX) whistleblower protection. One significant question has been how, in light of the statute's remedial nature but its focus on remedying securities fraud, courts should construe its definition of protected activity. In particular, courts (and the Department of Labor administrative law judges who generally hear these cases at the outset) have struggled with SOX's requirement that to be a protected whistleblower, the employee must complain about conduct that he or she 'reasonably believes constitutes a violation of ' any rule or regulation of the [SEC], or any provision of Federal law relating to fraud against shareholders' (<i>see</i> 18 U.S.C. ' 1514A).
Supreme Court: Title VII Employee Threshold Does Not Determine Jurisdiction
March 29, 2006
The United States Supreme Court has resolved a significant issue regarding coverage under Title VII: whether the 15-employee threshold for determining whether an individual or entity is an 'employer' covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a substantive element of plaintiff's claim for relief, or a jurisdictional issue. (Arbaugh v. Y &amp; H Corp., No. 04-944 (2006)). In Arbaugh, the Supreme Court, reversing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, held that the 15-employee threshold is an element of a plaintiff's claim that must be challenged prior to trial on the merits. The Supreme Court's decision is significant because evaluating the number of employees as a substantive issue would allow a federal court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and to retain discretion to hear pendent state law claims even if it dismisses the federal claims for failure to state a claim.
New Rule on 'Internet Applicant'
March 29, 2006
The Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) oversees compliance with the equal opportunity and affirmative action requirements applicable to all government contractors. The OFCCP is charged with enforcing Executive Order 11246, which prohibits federal contractors from discriminating against applicants on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The Order also requires contractors to use affirmative action so that equal opportunity is available for all phases of employment. As such, contractors must retain all applicant-related company records as well as other employment records. In particular, contractors are required to maintain records of 'applicant flow data' by soliciting gender, race and ethnicity information from all applicants. If a contractor fails to comply with the rules issued by the OFCCP, it will be subject to disciplinary action, ranging from citations and economic fines to debarment.
Litigation
February 28, 2006
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.

MOST POPULAR STORIES

  • 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.
    Read More ›
  • 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?
    Read More ›
  • Chambers & Partners: What's New After Sale
    On Nov. 10, 2023, Abry Partners, a leading North American middle market private equity firm, announced that it had acquired Chambers & Partners for $449 million from Inflexion, the UK private equity firm that purchased Chambers in 2018. What will this mean?
    Read More ›
  • 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.
    Read More ›
  • 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.
    Read More ›