Employment law: employers' exposure for dismissal in Canada

Article Abstract:

Canadian employment law covering employees not falling under a collective agreement or federal labour legislation maintains that employees may only be dismissed for just cause or with reasonable notice. Failure to do so may result in large damage settlements. Many issues involved may be unclear from whether an employee actually has been dismissed to what constitutes reasonable notice. To avoid risk employers should be apprised of the relevant laws before a dismissal. In some cases explicit employment contracts may be used to limit limit notice periods and establish other restrictions.

Interpretation and construction, Labor law, Employee dismissals, Employment terminations, Employment at will

---

Extraterritorial application of Title VII to American employees abroad

Article Abstract:

The US Supreme Court will hear a case, Boureslan v Aramco, for which it must decide if Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to American companies employing US citizens in foreign countries. Title VII states that employers shall not use practices that discriminate against employees on the basis of race, color, sex, religion or national origin. Congress probably did not intend for Title VII to apply extraterritorially, but even if the Court decides that it does not, the Congress should pass legislation explicitly guaranteeing the civil rights of American workers abroad.

International business enterprises, Multinational corporations, Civil rights, Exterritoriality, Extraterritoriality

---

Defamation in employment: suits by "at will" employees

Article Abstract:

Defamation of character lawsuits by employees against current or former employers are on the rise with employers sensitized by the recent large award for the employee in the Florida case John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co v Zalay. The best defense for employers in these cases is to maintain a qualified privilege by making sure that whatever claims are broadcast are true and confidentially disseminated on a need to know basis. Unless the employee can then prove that the dissemination was motivated by malice, the employer should be able to maintain its privilege.

Analysis, Libel and slander, Employers

Similar abstracts:

• Abstracts: Employment law after Gilmer: compulsory arbitration of statutory antidiscrimination rights. Assessing attitudes and beliefs; employment cases stir jurors' emotions
• Abstracts: Labor and employment law developments in privatization - 1997. Privatization: defacing the community
• Abstracts: Ameliorating environmental racism: a citizens' guide to combatting the discriminatory siting of toxic waste dumps
• Abstracts: Insurance defense counsel: who is the client? Obtaining evidence in England: the role of United States counsel

This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.