Protect Yourself and Your Business with Indemnification Understanding
Herb Stapleton's FBI Experience Proves to be Asset to Dinsmore's Corporate Team
Former FBI Executive and Cybersecurity Leader Herbert Stapleton Joins Dinsmore’s National Corporate Practice
No Password Required: Former Lead Attorney at U.S. Cyber Command, Cyber Law Strategist, and Appreciator of ‘Mad Men’ Hats
A Counterintuitive Approach to Winning Without Litigation: One-on-One with Haley Morrison
Lawyers Beware: There Could Be Serious Ethics Issues With The New AI Browsers
LathamTECH in Focus: Tech Deals: The Emerging Focus of FDI Regulators?
Fox on Podcasting: Harnessing the Power of Niche
Navigating Employee Integration in Mergers and Acquisitions: Lessons From Pretty Woman — Hiring to Firing Podcast
FCPA Compliance Report: Stay the Course: Ellen Lafferty on Navigating Anti-Corruption Compliance in 2025
Multijurisdictional Employers, P2: 2025 State-by-State Updates on Non-Compete/Non-Solicitation Agts
6 Takeaways | From Tension to Teamwork: Real Strategies for Legal Collaboration
Hsu Untied interview with David Cohen, General Counsel at Infinite Athlete
Hsu Untied interview with Brad Waugh, General Counsel at TP-Link
Compliance Tip of the Day – New FCPA Enforcement Memo – What Does it Mean?
Hsu Untied interview with D'Lonra Ellis, CLO of Oakland A's
Your Guide to Dealing with Subpoenas Effectively
Episode 371 -- DOJ's New Corporate Enforcement Program
Shout Outs and Rants: Episode 153, The CW 25 Edition
Regulatory Ramblings: Episode 68 - Why Geopolitical Risk Matters to Compliance and Legal Staff with Mark Nuttal and Chad Olsen
A recent Florida appellate decision offers a valuable blueprint for insurers and corporate legal teams seeking to limit exposure in questionable vicarious liability claims. In Campo v. Uber Technologies, Inc., the Third...more
On Oct. 2, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released proposed enforcement guidance on harassment in the workplace, and the proposed guidance has been receiving quite a bit of attention. This begs the...more
A California Court of Appeals affirmed an employer’s Motion for Summary Judgment on that question, finding that the employer was not vicariously liable in a recent opinion. The case involves Clanisha Villegas, who worked for...more
Under Title VII, employers are vicariously liable for incidents of sexual harassment engaged in by supervisors. In its Faragher and Ellerth decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged a limited defense to claims of...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: The Fourth Circuit has issued a reminder of the boundaries of employer liability for defamation where there is no nexus between the employee’s offensive speech and the individual’s workplace...more
An employer is liable for an accident on an employee’s commute to and from work only if the vehicle was required for work on the day of the employee’s accident, a California appellate court has ruled. ...more
Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Hylko v. U.S. Steel Corporation affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the employer in a lawsuit alleging same-sex sexual harassment...more
Another case has been decided adding to the back and forth in the legal world on the issues of a joint employer relationship of a franchisor and its franchisee and vicarious liability and agency between a franchisor and...more
In Gail M. Lynn, et al. v. Tatitlek Support Services, Inc., et al., 2017 WL 696008, published February 24, 2017, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, affirmed the trial court’s granting of summary judgment in...more
In Howard v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., a Hawaiian Federal Court found that Hertz Rent-a-Car could not be held responsible for its employee’s Facebook comments about one of its customers. While employers should welcome the...more
Franchise agreement recitals declaring your franchisee to be an independent contractor, not an employee, are not dispositive! Until now, the spotlight has never shined so brightly on franchising and, specifically, on...more
Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, No. S204543 (August 28, 2014): On August 28, 2014, the California Supreme Court issued a decision holding that a franchisor that did not exhibit the characteristics of an “employer” was not...more