A company that failed to intercede while an employee sexually harassed numerous women over a 10-year period can be held liable for creating a hostile work environment and for the employee’s retaliation against his victims.
Do military-owned U.S. spy satellites used domestically violate the Posse Comitatus Act and the Fourth Amendment? The Congressional Research Service examines the legal issues.
The federal government did not discriminate against a job applicant when it hired a younger person instead, a district court ruled, because the applicant had not proved that he was qualified for the job.
For drug runners, moving illicit money around the world is as easy as using a cell phone. To read an explanation of how they do it, check out the State Department’s paper.
Officials in Harris County, Texas, home to the Port of Houston, are pursuing a novel approach to fund port-wide security, specifically the local matching funds required by federal Port Security Grant Program awards. The Texas legislature has authorized establishment of a self-governed management district that could levy supplemental property taxes, solely for funding matching requirements.
The Interagency Threat Assessment Coordination Group (ITACG) is up and runnning at the National Counterterrorism Center, distilling international- and national-level intelligence for use by state and local agencies, administrators recently told lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
A bill (H.R. 1662) introduced by Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-CA) that would provide funding for site security at some federal facilities has been approved by the House of Representatives and by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The full Senate has agreed to consider the measure.
A bill (S. 1889) introduced by Rep. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) designed to improve railroad safety has been approved by the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. The Senate has agreed to consider the measure.
A new bill (S.B. 1357) pending in the Idaho Legislature would clarify an existing law that creates an identity theft loophole. Current law prohibits the theft and fraudulent misuse of other people’s information including their names and personal data. However, the law does not make it unlawful for an offender to create a new identity from another person’s information using a fictitious name or even his or her own name. This bill would amend current law to make such actions illegal.
Lawmakers in New Mexico are considering a bill (S.B. 193) that would expand the definitions of terrorism to include the use of weapons of mass destruction and would increase penalties for violations. The definition of terrorism would also change under the new provision. Under current state law, terrorism is defined as “any planned act of violence by an assemblage of two or more persons with the intent to cause damage or injury to another individual or his property.”
Under the new bill, terrorism would be defined as an act of violence or the threat of violence that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm. The act must be intended to threaten or coerce a civilian population or influence official policy. For the intentional damage of property to qualify as an act of terrorism, that damage must exceed $125,000.
A North Carolina appeals court has ruled that an employee who lied about his physical ability during a job interview may not collect workers’ compensation. The plaintiff, who applied for a job that was physically strenuous, claimed that he had never had a back problem and had never filed for workers’ compensation. However, the plaintiff had a history of back problems, had filed two workers’ compensation claims, and had been deemed by doctors to be unfit to perform heavy-duty work.
A federal appeals court ruled that an employer, Stewart Enterprises, did not retaliate against three employees when it laid them off during a reduction in force. The employees filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of labor arguing that they were let go because they complained about faulty accounting and computer procedures and that the terminations were a violation of the whistleblower provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley. The court found that while the relevant procedures were not stellar business practices, they were not illegal and, therefore, not covered by Sarbanes-Oxley.