07/25/2011 - This text has considerable relevance to both the security and risk management professions and gives readers an appreciation of how they might develop an enterprisewide approach to protecting assets.
06/30/2011 - Courts rule on hostile work environments. A federal appeals court upholds the fraud conviction of a former Enron executive, while states introduce bills on defamatory information online and handguns in the workplace.
06/30/2011 - An employee who was fired for harassing a fellow employee may not sue her employer for discrimination. The employee claimed it was her religious duty as a Christian to constantly tell a gay coworker that she “was going to hell” and “had no right to live on this earth.” After the employee was fired, she filed a lawsuit claiming that she was discriminated against because of her religion. The federal appeals court ruled that the employee was fired for harassing her coworker, not because of her religion.
06/30/2011 - A federal appeals court has ruled that an employee may not sue his employer for creating a hostile work environment because the employer took immediate action to correct the problem, and the employee failed to report subsequent incidents.
05/27/2011 - Those who publicly report expunged conviction records are not liable for defamation if the information disclosed is true, according to the New Jersey Supreme Court. In the case, a political campaign publicized the expunged drug conviction of an opponent’s aide in a flyer.
05/27/2011 - An employee who was fired shortly after complaining of sexual harassment may pursue his retaliation claim against his employer, according to a federal appeals court (.pdf). The employee may pursue his lawsuit because he was fired two days after making a claim. The timing alone, ruled the court, serves as circumstantial evidence of retaliation.
05/27/2011 - An employer is liable for discrimination against an employee who was also a member of the U.S. Army Reserves, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court ruled that even though the person who fired the reservist had no discriminatory motives, she relied on information from those who did.