United States: State Appeals Court Concludes Employer Not Protected By CDA Section 230 in Employee Stalking Case, and Seems To Shrink The Statute Along The Way
An Illinois state appeals court recently held that although an employer that provided network connectivity to its employees is an "interactive service provider" under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the statute does not protect the employer from negligent supervision claims based upon the employee's alleged use of the network to communicate threats to a third party. The plaintiff claimed that he had notified the employer that the employee was threatening and harassing him, but the employer failed to take action to stop the employee's conduct. The appeals court held that Section 230 is inapplicable to the plaintiff's negligent supervision claim because an employer's duty to supervise its employee "is distinct from any conduct like editing, monitor- ing or removing offensive content published on the Internet."
To read more, click here
Weapons at the Workplace: New Law Has Maine Employers Concerned Following the deadly shooting in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater on July 20, gun sales and applications for concealed carry permits have risen across the nation. It has also caused some employers in Maine to express concern over a new state law that allows employees with such permits to bring their weapons with them to their workplace. The new law, explains attorney Meg LePage, "forbids employers from prohibiting employees from bringing guns to work, as long as they remain in the employee's vehicle and the vehicle's locked, and as long as the employee has a permit to carry a concealed weapon." Many employers who would like to see the statute repealed and who want to be able to set their own rules about the presence of weapons on or near their premises, are concerned because the statute opens employers to liability should a gun that is brought to work in violation of the law cause an injury or death on company property. Some are combating this by requiring employees who wish to bring a firearm to work to register the weapon with the company beforehand, a move many gun owners oppose.
To read more, click here
WORKPLACE VIOLENCE NEWS To Prevent A Tragedy, How Much Can A School Do?
A Colorado judge has refused to lift a gag order that prevents the University of Colorado from releasing information about former graduate student James Holmes, accused of killing 12 and wounding dozens more at a movie theater last month. The University of Colorado is now reviewing whether there was more they could have done to prevent the shooting. And while Colorado looks at its policies, other schools around the nation are doing the same. But as schools scramble to draw lessons from Colorado and tighten their procedures they're also trying to prevent a panicked reaction on their own campuses. The tendency after a tragedy is to over-report. Experts advise schools to create threat assessment teams that meet regularly — threat or no threat — and include faculty, medical staff and police who are specifically trained in threat assessment. Also, threat assessment teams should focus on how students are interacting with others rather than on specific traits, which have not been proven to predict violence. "What people are looking for is this magic pill of, 'If this behavior, then this action,' " says Gene Deisinger, deputy police chief at Virginia Tech. "And we just not have seen that to be an effective strategy."
To read more, click here Premises Security Liability: Reasoned Behavior Trumps Perfection
Increasingly, employees, customers, shareholders, and the general public hold all companies accountable for irrespon- sible behavior, especially when it involves premises security. Premises security litigation always involves looking into the “retrospectoscope” and micro-analyzing events and decisions that have occurred long before a violent criminal event takes place. The key inquiry in these cases is whether a premises owner may be held liable for failing to protect people from the results of reasonably foreseeable criminal conduct. It is essential for premises owners to have a security plan in place designed by a security professional that is based on reliable data, and updated on a regular basis. The cost of crime in a court of law for any company found guilty of premises security negligence may result in limited financial loss, but unlimited loss in terms of a damaged brand and reputation.
To read more, click here
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22