The National Law Forum

UK Employment Tribunal Awards £3.2m To Woman Called “Crazy Miss Cokehead” By Colleagues

The woman who was called “Crazy Miss Cokehead” by her manager has been awarded nearly £3.2m by an Employment Tribunal for sexual harassment, reportedly including £44,000 for injury to feelings and a further £15,000 in aggravated damages.

We originally posted a blog on this story in November 2013 http://www.employmentlawworldview.com/crazy-miss-cokehead-when-banter-goes-too-far/. Following the liability hearing, the Tribunal found in favour of Svetlana Lokhova who worked for the London branch of the Russian bank Sberbank CIB (UK) Ltd.

The Tribunal found that 19 out of her 22 allegations were not well founded. However, on the main issues, it was found that Ms Lokhova’s former manager, David Longmuir, had bullied and harassed her on grounds of sex (even in emails), reportedly suggesting that she needed to visit a Nigerian tribesman for sex to “calm her down”. Other such put-downs included saying that she had only been hired “because of her t***” and poking fun at her perceived privileged background.

In a stinging attack on the Bank, the Tribunal heavily criticised its conduct of the proceedings and said that there had been a “deliberate” attempt to bully her at the liability hearing in relation to an allegation that Ms Lokhova took drugs. It said, “That allegation is completely without foundation and should never have been put to her in cross examination”. In a Jeremy Kyle-style twist, Ms Lokhova was so “incensed and appalled” by the allegation that she took a drug test during the hearing, which was negative.

There were a number of other aggravating factors in this case. Mr Longmuir was not disciplined at all despite the strength of the evidence and carried on working for the Bank for a further year after the bullying, receiving a £168,000 pay-off when he eventually did leave. While I am sure that this of course had no bearing at all on the Tribunal’s ruling, you might be aware that with the benefit of the tax breaks applicable to severance payments, this is the equivalent of an Employment Judge’s salary for some 20 months. No reason at all why thatpay-off should have irritated the Tribunal.

The Tribunal further criticised Paolo Zaniboni (who is still the CEO of the London office) who took no action against Mr Longmuir despite the evidence against him and whom the Tribunal also found to be guilty of unlawful victimisation.

The Tribunal’s attitude towards the Bank and its view of the aggravating features of this case is, perhaps, reflected in the reported awards of £44,000 and £15,000 for injury to feelings and aggravated damages respectively, which (if those reports are right) are very high awards indeed compared to previous cases. The £44,000 figure would represent nearly a 50% uplift on the previously-understood ceiling for such awards.

The Tribunal in this case found that Ms Lokhova, who earned £750,000 a year in salary and bonuses working in Equity Sales, “will never work in financial services again, on the basis of the medical evidence”. They found that she was suffering from a moderately severe psychiatric illness and had been suffering from such since January 2012. The bulk of her compensation therefore represented future loss of earnings.

Lessons for employers

An interesting point for employers arising out of this case is how to deal with a case like this to limit the potential financial sanctions. In this case there were emails containing the abuse and therefore written evidence of it (however, in most cases there will not be). It should have been obvious to the Bank that it was going to lose in relation to those allegations. So what can you do by way of mitigation?

1. In circumstances where internal investigations reveal that it is likely that the allegations of harassment are true, we suggest issuing an immediate apology to the complainant in relation to those allegations (and in extreme circumstances consider paying some money as compensation to the victim).

2. If an individual brings a claim, give serious consideration also to conceding liability when it is obvious that the allegation is true (however, take legal advice before doing this). Continuing to defend allegations that are indefensible will increase your costs and could lead to the Tribunal finding that the complainant’s injury (either medical and/or to feelings) has been aggravated. An early apology can improve your prospects of limiting the damage and you will be able to focus on the allegations that are, perhaps, capable of a defence. A swift apology could limit the complainant’s ability to claim that stress and/or publicity had done fatal damage to his/her career path (especially in a small world like the City of London) and so prevent such significant loss of earnings claims also.

3. Further, think carefully what is put to a witness in Tribunal. There was no relevance of Ms Lokhova’s alleged drug habits to the main issues in this case (which was whether or not she had been bullied and harassed). It is difficult to see how baiting her on the witness stand to try and “prove” that she was a drug addict was going to achieve anything and, in this case, the Bank scored a comprehensive own goal when she conclusively proved that she was not.

4. Last, give visible consideration to the handling of any employee who is clearly guilty of inappropriate behaviours. It did not take the Tribunal decision to show the Bank that Mr Longmuir’s conduct should be regarded as unacceptable. If an employer in those circumstances takes the decision not to act against an employee (for example because he/she is a real money-spinner or related to someone in senior management or a major client) then that is a judgment it is entitled to make but only once it has weighed that option against the additional compensation the harassed individual is likely to receive as a result. A really scorching final warning would now seem to have been a better compromise.

5. If there is a pay-off, make it as small as possible!

ARTICLE BY

Louise Martin

Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

Email Notice Without Consent Is Not Notice

The California General Corporation Law unequivocally authorizes the giving of notice of stockholder meetings by electronic transmission. Section 601(b) provides “Notice of a shareholders’ meeting or any report shall be given personally, by electronic transmission by the corporation . . .”. The statute further provides that notice is deemed to have been given when sent by electronic transmission by the corporation. Nonetheless, sending notice by email may not be valid because the statute provides that notice by electronic transmission is valid only if it complies with Section 20 of the Corporations Code.

Section 20 imposes two general conditions and one specific condition to the giving of notice by electronic transmission. First, the recipient must have provided an unrevoked consent to the use of those means of transmission for communications under or pursuant to the Corporations Code. Since the term “electronic transmission by the corporation” includes several different means of transmission, the consent must be to the form of transmission (e.g., facsimile or email). Second, the electronic transmission must create “a record that is capable of retention, retrieval, and review, and that may thereafter be rendered into clearly legible tangible form”. Finally, if the recipient is an individual shareholder who is a natural person, the consent to the transmission must be preceded by, or include, a clear written statement to the recipient as to:

any right of the recipient to have the record provided or made available on paper or in non-electronic form,
whether the consent applies only to that transmission, to specified categories of communications, or to all communications from the corporation, and
the procedures the recipient must use to withdraw consent.

Nearly two decades ago, I wrote about the Corporations Code move into Cyberspace, The California Corporations Code Enters Cyberspace: 1995 Legislation Tackles New On-Line Technologies, 18 CEB California Business Law Reporter 5 (1996).

More On The SEC’s Backwards Rule Proposal

In this February post, I argued that the SEC got it backwards when it proposed new rules requiring disclosure of whether hedging transactions by directors, officers and others are permitted. My point was that directors and officers don’t need the company’s permission to engage in these transactions. The relevant disclosure is whether the company prohibits hedging transactions that would otherwise be permitted. The SEC’s proposed rules misleadingly imply that permission is required.

Recently, I was reading an account of the interactions between the first American consul to Japan, Townsend Harris, and Governor Okada of Shimoda, Japan. The Japanese government was concerned that the Americans would survey the coast of Japan and pressed Harris to prohibit any surveying by American vessels. The following record illustrates how the want of permission might be argued into a prohibition:

The Japanese: There is not article in the treaty which prohibits surveying.

Harris: There is no article which prohibits it.

Moriyama [a member of the Governor’s staff]: Not to permit it means that we refuse it.

Dai Nihon Komonjo, Bakumatsu Gaikoku Kankei Monjo, XV, 63.

If this seems a bit of obscure history, John Wayne actually played Townsend Harris in the 1958 film, The Barbarian and the Geisha, directed by John Huston.

By Keith Paul Bishop

Of Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP

This week – Register for ABA National Institute for New Partners – April 17 in Washington D.C.

If you are a new partner or are on the cusp of becoming a new partner, register today for the ABA’s National Institute on New Partners.

At this unique one-day Institute, you will:

•	Network with new partners throughout the country, comparing and contrasting their firm’s business and professional development practices with your own.
•	Learn from top practitioners as they divulge key considerations for new partners, from ownership issues to pitfalls, finances to business development.
•	Meet and socialize with your colleagues during breakfast, lunch and concluding reception. All for the cost of about one billable hour!
•	Hear from our distinguished Invited Keynote speaker Ted Olson, a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. Among other accolades, he was selected by Time magazine in 2010 as one of the 100 most influential people in the world and he is one of the nation’s premier appellate and United States Supreme Court advocates. He has argued 61 cases in the Supreme Court, including the twoBush v. Gore cases, Citizen United v. Federal Election Commission, and Hollingsworth v. Perry, the case affirming the overturning of California’s Proposition 8 banning same sex marriage.
•	Receive 4 hours of CLE credit, including 2.75 hours of ethics credit.

NLRB Issues Guidance Regarding Lawful Employee Handbook Policies

Employers might know (or if they do not, they should) that the National Labor Relations Act (or “NLRA”) applies even to employers who do not have a unionized workforce. Due to the broad reach of the NLRA, the recent guidance issued by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) regarding employee handbook policies is a must-read for human resources professionals and those charged with maintaining their company’s employee policies.

The focus of the General Counsel’s “Report” issued on March 18, 2015, arises out of Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA, pursuant to which the mere maintenance of a rule that has a chilling effect on an employee’s Section 7 activity is unlawful. (“Section 7 activity” is any activity by an employee or group of employees by which they seek to improve their pay and working conditions, regardless of whether or not they are already unionized.) The most important obstacle for employers to consider when drafting and revising their policies, according to the General Counsel, is the fact that policies will be considered unlawful by the NLRB when they would bereasonably construed by employees as restricting Section 7 activity, even if the policies are not designed or intended to have that effect.

The primary recommendation from the General Counsel is that handbook policies include clear and specific language, precise examples, and explanatory context so that employees will not reasonably construe otherwise lawful policies as limiting their Section 7 activity.

An exhaustive recitation of the General Counsel’s extensive examples of lawful and unlawful handbook language goes beyond the scope of this article. However, as a general matter, the General Counsel found that language that provided sufficient context to employees, so as to avoid employees misconstruing the targeted conduct, was the most likely type of policy to meet with NLRB approval.

Again, as with other policies, the use of clarifying examples and context to avoid misinterpretation is highly recommended in the Report.

Regarding confidentiality, for example, handbook policies are considered unlawfully overbroad if they leave employees with the impression they cannot discuss wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment with fellow employees and with non-employees. Employers can minimize the risk of creating such an impression by defining terms such as “confidential information,” or by placing confidentiality policies within a context that clarifies their scope, such as within handbook sections addressing trade secrets or patient medical information.

As for employee conduct rules governing action that might include criticism of management (a protected Section 7 activity), the NLRB considers it unlawful for such rules to prohibit merely “rude” or “disrespectful” behavior toward managers or the “company” without sufficient clarification or context. Even false statements cannot be prohibited by a blanket rule (maliciousfalsehoods, however, may be lawfully prohibited). Businesses may nevertheless prohibit disrespectful or unprofessional behavior toward co-workers, clients, and other non-managers – as opposed to the company management – and may generally prohibitinsubordination toward management, as well.

Company media policies, in the meantime, need to be clear that any prohibition on speaking with the media is with respect to anyone purporting to speak on behalf of the employer without authorization. Employees should not be led to believe, whether intentionally or not, that they are in any way limited from speaking with the media regarding their employment in an individual capacity regarding wages, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment. For example, the General Counsel found lawful a media policy that indicates one person only should speak for the company and that instructs any employee interviewed to state that he or she is not authorized to comment for the employer in response to any reporter inquiries.

The General Counsel looked unfavorably upon employee handbook policies that invoked anti-strike language within policies restricting employee movement to and from work. Such policies should not prohibit “walking off the job,” which can be misconstrued to refer to protected strike actions and walkouts. Phrases like “work stoppage” should also be avoided. The General Counsel, however, found acceptable a policy that simply stated, “Entering or leaving Company property without permission may result in discharge.” But employers must also be careful regarding a requirement of permission before employees can enter property, as employers may not deny off-duty employees access to non-work areas (such as parking lots) unless justified by legitimate business reasons.

As a final example, the General Counsel’s Report indicates that lawful employee policies may prohibit employee activity that amounts to competition against the company or to self-dealing, but a policy may not, under the broad label of a “conflict-of-interest” rule, prohibit any conduct that is not “in the best interest” of the employer because protected Section 7 activity can, of course, be against the interest of the company.

Employers with questions on a particular situation should consult with experienced labor and employment counsel regarding their handbook policies.

The 9 Top Habits of Successful Rainmakers, Part 3 of 3

Working with more than 10,000 attorneys over the past dozen years has taught me a lot about what it takes to be a successful rainmaker. Some would argue you’re born with it; however, I believe many of these successful habits can be learned.

To read about the first six top habits of successful rainmakers, go here to access Part 1 and here to access Part 2. These are the final three:

7. Incorporate Sales Into Daily Life

While personality is a key factor in successful selling, developing a sales mindset so that it permeates your daily activities is a key attribute for high-achieving rainmakers. These attorneys consistently:

Differentiate contracts from prospects. Listen for the signals that distinguish a real prospect from someone who is simply price shopping or worse (using you to obtain a lower fee from another lawyer). Create a list of questions to disqualify contacts focusing on the criteria of “need, want, afford.”

Interview qualified prospects directly. Are you consistently talking directly to your prospects (versus their gatekeepers and time-wasters)? Make sure you are speaking to the real decision-maker.

Give prospects a call to action. Make sure each prospect receives one clear call to action. Make it easy for them to follow. Ask for their business!

Follow up. Have a process in place that will follow up with a thank you letter or e-mail within 24 hours of the interview. Be sure to end every interview with action steps (e.g., what each party agrees to do as next steps and when they will do it by). If you agree to do something, be sure to do it before the deadline.

8. Answer the Question, Why Hire Us?

To be able to successfully pitch why you are the best choice, you must understand the problem the prospect sitting across from you is facing. They are coming to you seeking a solution to a specific problem, which for you could be something you see every day, but for them are new and unique.

Don’t emphasize the kinds of services you offer, the quality of your services, the size of your law firm or your years of experience. What you need to tell prospects is the benefits they will get because they are doing business with you, the value you will provide them (value does NOT mean price) and theresults they can expect from the services you provide.

9. Perfect the Close

One of the primary reasons that a company or person hires an attorney is to alleviate some type of “pain”. They may use words like “challenges”, “problems”, or “obstacles”, but all of the words amount to the same thing; they are experiencing discomfort; they are experiencing pain. Their “pain” is whatever they are asking your assistance with. Successfully closing a deal with a prospect relies upon your ability to identify their pain and effectively communicate how you will help them resolve it.

Some attorneys have a very bad habit of making clients feel stupid by using too many legal terms in conversation. Stay on your client’s level and always make sure they understood what you are trying to communicate.

In perfecting the close, great sales people:

Lead with benefits
Can articulate and add value to the conversation
Build credibility and trust
Are perceived as a trusted advisor
Identify a prospect’s wants and needs
Sell to the prospect’s goals
Focus on prospect’s gaps
Demonstrate how they will solve the prospect’s problems or needs

ARTICLE BY

Stephen Fairley

The Rainmaker Institute

Part 2: The 9 Top Habits of Successful Rainmakers

Successful rainmakers consistently apply certain habits and characteristics to distinguish themselves from competitors and increase the revenues of their law firms.

Click here to read Part 1 for the first three top habits of successful rainmakers. Here are the next three:

4. Mind and Grow Your Referral Network

Just like any cash crop, a referral network needs to be nurtured in order to grow. And one of the best ways to nurture your referral network is to keep educating them about your firm so they can send you great referrals.

Here are five things you need to tell them:

What your perfect client looks like. Provide a detailed description of your ideal client.
Why someone should hire you. Be clear about your unique competitive advantage.
What problems you solve. Again, be as specific as possible.
How you follow up. Tell them your process so they are comfortable with referring you.
Why referrals are important to you.

In addition, you need to find unique ways to thank your referral sources and, whenever you can, reciprocate.

5. Leverage Relationship Building Tools

Staying connected with referral sources and clients you want to hire you again and again is the hallmark of a great rainmaker. In my experience over the dozen years of working with more than 10,00 attorneys, I’ve found one simple solution that will help you achieve this goal without much effort or expense on your part: an e-newsletter.

E-newsletters provide an easy way for you to reach out to your entire network at the same time and to keep your name and your firm in their mind. The key benefits include:

It Establishes a Dialogue – Most email marketing companies make it easy to provide links to email and social media. The easier you make it for a contact to share information, the more likely they will share it.

It’s Easy to Track – Your email marketing provider will make tracking your effectiveness simple. They know who opened your email, who opted out, who clicked through. It’s an easy way for you to find out if the newsletter is working.

Keeping Them Informed – With a newsletter, you can include information about other firm highlights you want to share. Did someone just get an award? Did a case just settle? Did someone new join the firm?

Keep in Touch – Use the newsletter to keep in touch with former clients. It will reinforce the positive impression you had on them and ensure that you are top of mind if a new issue arises.

Educate Your Clients – If you handled my divorce, then I may not think of you when it comes time to hire an estate planning attorney. That isn’t my fault though, it’s yours. Educate your past, current and future clients and referral sources about all your practice areas.

It is a long road of small interactions, but by focusing on creating a solid relationship with your network you will benefit in the end.

6. Develop a Marketing Mindset

The Internet and social media has blown the old legal marketing model to bits, and those with the entrepreneurial mindset and vision to harness the incredible power of these modern marketing tools create their own opportunities for revenue and growth beyond their wildest dreams.

Be proactive to recognize opportunities for you and your network and keep the radar on in every aspect of your life. Marketing is not an event, it is a mindset and a lifestyle. Access every resource available to you — internal, external, memberships, friends, family, and colleagues.

ARTICLE BY

Stephen Fairley

The Rainmaker Institute

The 9 Top Habits of Successful Rainmakers, Part 1 of 3

Successful rainmakers have certain habits and characteristics in common that drive them to greater levels of success. These habits and characteristics manifest themselves as key behaviors and specific actions, and understanding how to implement these actions on a consistent basis will distinguish you from your competitors and increase your revenues.

1. Develop a Solid Personal Brand

rainmaker For most attorneys, reputation is everything. It used to be that attorneys gained their reputations primarily through word-of-mouth and personal interaction. Today, building a reputation must contain an online element since this is where most people gather and interact.

A personal brand is the expression of your identity that answers the question of why clients should want to work with you. Having a niche is important in creating your personal brand. Plus, it is much easier to build your brand in a select niche than it is to stand out in a huge market like “attorneys”. Even online, it’s important for you to niche your practice in an area that can provide living, breathing clients for your practice.

2. Proactively Manage Digital Assets

What do prospects see when they type your name into a search engine? If it’s not much, that can often be as harmful as something negative. Here are some tips on managing your online reputation:

Update your website and social media profiles. Research shows that 76% of people searching for an attorney go online first, so your website and social media profiles are likely one of the first chances you will have to make a good first impression on a prospect. Be sure these are robust reflections of your expertise and the market you serve.

Create good, meaningful content. Wherever you are online – your law firm website, your blog, your social media networks – make sure you are creating and posting valuable and relevant content that your target prospects will find interesting and helpful.

Look and listen. Create a Google Alert for yourself and your firm so you can monitor what is being said. If you find something negative on a site that allows you to comment, do so professionally and unemotionally.

3. Aggressively Build Contacts

Having a great contact list is key to being an effective rainmaker. While you may not realize it, you probably have more contacts than you think. Not only do you have all the contact information of the people you have done business with, you can look at your email contact addresses and also get the email addresses of those individuals you are connected with on LinkedIn. Right off the bat this will give you a bigger database then you thought.

You can also begin to speak, attend networking events or create Free Reports that motivate people to give you their contact information in order to get valuable information back.

In addition, any time you meet someone or someone calls your office, get their contact information so you can begin to communicate with them on a regular basis in a meaningful way.

To succeed at building contacts, you need to err on side of inclusivity in all your interactions. Be clear on your follow-up systems, maintain a process for adding new contacts and regularly review contact lists for updates.

ARTICLE BY

Stephen Fairley

The Rainmaker Institute

The New OFCCP Sexual Orientation And Gender Identity Protections Are Now In Effect

Executive Order (“EO”) 11246, as amended by EO 13762, officially went into effect, representing the first time in the federal sector that sexual orientation and gender identity have been expressly protected. On July 21, 2014, President Obama issued EO 13762, which amended EO 11246 to prohibit federal contractors from discriminating against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. These additional protections are being incorporated into the Federal Acquisition Regulations (“FAR”), which will become effective tomorrow, April 10, 2015.

In order to educate the public on these new protections, the Office of Federal Contractor Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) is conducting a series of webinars regarding the new sexual orientation and gender identity protections. Thus far, the webinars have focused on the obligations of federal contractors and the procedures available to claimants for filing a complaint under the new protections. We have summarized below key points from the webinar:

To Whom Does This Apply?

These new protections apply to any federal contractor, subcontractor, or government funded construction contractor that enters into or renews a federal contract or contracts valued at $10,000 or more per year. These new protections only apply to contracts entered into or renewed on or after April 8, 2015. These protections do not apply to organizations receiving grants from the federal government.

Administrative Changes Required By Employers

Under the new protections, employers must update the EEO language on their job advertisements, their EEO policies, and their “EEO is the Law” poster. The poster need not be updated until the OFCCP releases a supplement. The OFCCP has not yet announced when this supplement will be released.

With respect to the EEO language, the OFCCP has said that employers can simply say “Equal Employment Opportunity” on their job postings. However, if the employer chooses to list out the protected groups, it must list “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” The OFCCP does not endorse the use of the acronym “LGBT,” as this is not representative of the entire protected class.

Dual Filing With The EEOC

The OFCCP clarified that any complaints alleging sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination are considered “dual-filed” with the EEOC. This means that the OFCCP will stand in the shoes of the EEOC when investigating the Title VII component of the complaint. While Title VII does not overtly protect against gender identity and sexual orientation discrimination, the EEOC has taken the position that these classifications are protected under Title VII and will pursue cases on behalf of these individuals.

As a consequence of the dual-filing process, if the OFCCP does not find cause or does not dispose of a case within 180 days, an employee can request a Notice of Right to Sue from the OFCCP to bring a private cause of action against the employer. This is significant as EO 11246 does not provide for a private cause of action. The OFCCP clarified, however, that it does not intend to pursue the compensatory and punitive damages available under Title VII (which are not available under the EO).

Religious Affiliated Contractors

In one of the webinars, the OFCCP clarified that all federal contractors, including religiously affiliated federal contractors, are required to comply with the new protections. This means that even those contractors who have been granted certain religious exemptions under EO 11246 may not discriminate based upon sexual orientation or gender identity.

Restroom Access Policies

The OFCCP clarified how employers must approach restroom access under the new protections. OFCCP explained that employers must allow employees to use restrooms based upon their gender identity. This means that if an employee was identified as a male at birth, but identifies as a female, the employer must permit that employee to use the female restroom if the employee desires to do so.

Benefits

The new protections provide that the same benefits must be provided to same-sex spouses as non-same-sex spouses. However, employers are not required to provide the same benefits to couples in civil unions or domestic partnerships as long as the denial of benefits is not based on discrimination. Consequently, if a contractor provides heterosexual domestic partners with benefits, it must provide homosexual domestic partners with the same benefits.

ARTICLE BY

Connie N Bertram

Alex C Weinstein

Proskauer Rose LLP

Massachusetts Announces Significant Changes to the Medical Marijuana Dispensary Program

At today’s Massachusetts Public Health Council meeting, Department of Public Health Commissioner Monica Bharel, MD, MPH, announced sweeping changes to the Medical Marijuana Dispensary Program in Massachusetts. The changes follow what Dr. Bharel described as a “top to bottom” review of the application process that has been plagued with difficulties. The revisions shift the focus of the application process from its current form, which has followed a competitive procurement model, to a licensure focus similar to other health care facilities. The revised application process will launch on May 15, 2015, and will feature a rolling basis application process. The application review will include a sharp focus on security issues and the background of those involved in the proposed dispensary. Dr. Bharel noted that this shift will result in a more efficient, straightforward application process and that DPH will strive to make the process more straightforward and more transparent. No regulatory changes are needed, as the changes affect DPH’s process only.

Starting today, DPH will post and update the status of dispensaries in the approval and development “pipeline,” and the number of registered and certified patients on its website. Those applicants with pending applications will not need to reapply. DPH will clarify the process to resubmit applications that were previously rejected.

Public Health Council member Harold Cox (Associate Dean of Public Health Practice, Boston University School of Public Health) addressed ongoing legalization efforts – marijuana is legal in four states and the District of Columbia – and suggested that DPH should be proactive in understanding what is happening in those states and how potential legalization would affect Massachusetts’ program. Public Health Council member Dr. Michele David expressed concern regarding the packaging of marijuana edibles, particularly candy, that may look like ordinary candy to children.

The DPH press release is available here.

ARTICLE BY

M. Daria Niewenhous

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

May 15th in NYC: Attend the ABA’s Ninth Annual National Institute on E-Discovery

Remaining current is critical to successful litigation. This program is relevant for both in-house and outside counsel who are involved in litigation and the discovery process. E-Discovery is a rapidly evolving field with laws and regulations that are constantly changing. Attendees of this program will gain practical knowledge that may be implemented immediately in day-to-day operations.

Additional Information Institute Brochure

Noted practitioners and jurists will address:

Practical tips for managing litigation holds

Preserving personal data devices in light of the varying interpretations of “possession, custody, and control”

Judges’ perspectives on the Proposed Federal Rule of Civil Procedure amendments

Recent court decisions, as reviewed by one of the industry’s leading authorities on E-Discovery case law

Meeting ethical obligations related to securing clients’ E-Discovery data

The unique aspects of cross-border E-Discovery between the U.S., and the European Union, Latin America, Asia-Pacific, and Canada

The National Law Forum

UK Employment Tribunal Awards £3.2m To Woman Called “Crazy Miss Cokehead” By Colleagues

Lessons for employers

Like this:

Email Notice Without Consent Is Not Notice

More On The SEC’s Backwards Rule Proposal

Like this:

This week – Register for ABA National Institute for New Partners – April 17 in Washington D.C.

Like this:

NLRB Issues Guidance Regarding Lawful Employee Handbook Policies

Like this:

The 9 Top Habits of Successful Rainmakers, Part 3 of 3

7. Incorporate Sales Into Daily Life

8. Answer the Question, Why Hire Us?

9. Perfect the Close

Like this:

Part 2: The 9 Top Habits of Successful Rainmakers

4. Mind and Grow Your Referral Network

5. Leverage Relationship Building Tools

6. Develop a Marketing Mindset

Like this:

The 9 Top Habits of Successful Rainmakers, Part 1 of 3

1. Develop a Solid Personal Brand

2. Proactively Manage Digital Assets

3. Aggressively Build Contacts

Like this:

The New OFCCP Sexual Orientation And Gender Identity Protections Are Now In Effect

To Whom Does This Apply?

Administrative Changes Required By Employers

Dual Filing With The EEOC

Religious Affiliated Contractors

Restroom Access Policies

Benefits

Like this:

Massachusetts Announces Significant Changes to the Medical Marijuana Dispensary Program

Like this:

May 15th in NYC: Attend the ABA’s Ninth Annual National Institute on E-Discovery

Like this: