01/30/2014 - A company is not liable for injuries sustained in a vehicle accident caused by one of its employees. The employee, though driving a company truck, was acting outside the scope of his employment when the accident occurred because the employee was traveling to meet his wife on a purely personal errand.
01/30/2014 - To prevail under a California law requiring the protection of personal health information, a plaintiff must prove that the information was accessed by unauthorized individuals. Alleging that the information could have been accessed is insufficient.
01/30/2014 - New York’s high court has ruled that a parolee can sue a third-party laboratory after the lab reported erroneous results on a drug test. The parolee accused the laboratory of negligent testing because it failed to conduct a back-up test to correct for a known high false-positive rate.
01/23/2014 - A widely-circulated terrorist threat against attendees of the Winter Olympics is a hoax, according to officials. The University of Oklahoma responds to reports of a shooting on campus that turn out to be a false alarm. And a federal contractor has fraudulently obtained millions of dollars from the government.
11/26/2013 - A federal appeals court has ruled that the whistleblower provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley act apply to employees of publicly traded companies who report fraud, even if that fraud does not relate to company shareholders.
08/30/2013 - Considering a potential employee’s social media presence during the application process could be controversial, an expert said during an ASIS International Information Asset Protection and Pre-Employment Screening Council (IAPPES) conference call.
11/30/2012 - One of the greatest challenges for any security director is finding and retaining the right people to fill security positions. The keys to success are to know how to attract and interview candidates and then how to engender loyalty among those who join the team. ONLINE EXCLUSIVE
06/27/2012 - A new law signed by Mayor Vincent Gray makes it illegal for employers in the District to discriminate against the unemployed when making hiring decisions. Employers would not be able to consider employment status during hiring decisions and would be barred from mentioning employment status in job advertisements. Employers are also prohibited from retaliating against those who report a violation of the law.