Category Archives: Regulatory Risk

Игроки всегда ценят удобный и стабильный доступ к играм. Для этого идеально подходит зеркало Вавады, которое позволяет обходить любые ограничения, обеспечивая доступ ко всем бонусам и слотам.

Senators Reach Deal on TRIA Extension

Posted on by

Key U.S. Senators have announced a bi-partisan agreement on a long term TRIA extension. Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY), Dean Heller (R-NV), Jack Reed (D-RI), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Chris Murphy (D-CT) and Mike Johanns (R-NE) are the cosponsors of the legislation that is expected to be introduced in the next day or two.

“In a post-9-11 New York, terrorism risk insurance has proven to be an absolutely essential partnership between the government and the private sector that has turned rebuilding downtown Manhattan from a question to a certainty,” said Senator Schumer. “But there is still more to be done and this crucial bipartisan plan will reauthorize and extend the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act before it expires at year’s end. Redevelopment and economic growth should be encouraged in New York and other high-risk areas across the country, even in the face of unfathomable terrorist events, and I will work with my colleagues to get TRIA passed this year to preserve this essential tool.”

“Chicagoans believe it is our birthright to stand in the shadows of the tallest buildings in the world,” Senator Kirk said. “With its private-public partnership, TRIA will better protect the economy from terrorist harm while protecting taxpayers from financial risk.”

The Senate legislation would extend the program for seven years while raising the recoupment amount from $27.5 billion to $37.5 billion and increasing the industry’s copay amount to 20% from 15%.

buy glucophage online https://silvermancare.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/glucophage.html no prescription pharmacy

These changes would be phased in over the next five years.

While reaching a deal in the Senate is a key step in getting TRIA passed, and welcome news to advocates of a long-term extension, including RIMS, there is still a long way to go before an extension is passed. The Senate version must still go through the full Senate process, while, on the House side, there continues to be significant resistance from House Financial Services leadership, including Representatives Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) and Randy Neugebauer (R-TX), who remain skeptical of the program. Any bill from the House Financial Services Committee is expected to include more far reaching adjustments to the program.

buy bimatoprost online https://silvermancare.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/bimatoprost.html no prescription pharmacy

Alabama Court Dismisses EEOC Dreadlocks Policy Challenge

Posted on by

Employing reasoning adopted by a number of other courts, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama recently dismissed the EEOC’s claim that an employer’s policy prohibiting employees from wearing dreadlocks violated Title VII – the case of EEOC v. Catastrophe Management Solutions. In its ruling, the Court confirmed that “employers’ grooming policies are outside the purview of Title VII,” and it further rejected the EEOC’s argument that the definition of race under Title VII should be read expansively to encompass more than immutable physical characteristics unique to a particular group.

Case Background

The case arose after Chastity Jones, an African-American applicant received an offer of employment from the defendant. At the time of the job offer, the employer had a grooming policy, which provided in part that “hairstyles should reflect a business/professional image” and prohibited “excessive hairstyles or unusual colors.” The employer interpreted the policy as prohibiting the wearing of dreadlocks, and thus conditioned its offer on Jones cutting off her dreadlocks. When Jones declined to do so, defendant withdrew the offer of employment. The EEOC filed suit, alleging that application of the policy to prohibit dreadlocks violated Title VII and that defendant intentionally discriminated on the basis of race. The employer moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

EEOC’s Arguments

The EEOC argued that the employer had refused to hire Jones because she was black and that a policy that prohibits dreadlocks is racially discriminatory on its face because dreadlocks were determinant of racial identity. The EEOC also urged the Court to adopt an expansive definition of race under Title VII that would encompass “both physical and cultural characteristics, even when those cultural characteristics are not unique to a particular group.”

As an apparent fallback position, the EEOC argued that dismissal was inappropriate because it should be allowed to present expert testimony on three factual predicates:  1) “that Blacks are primary wearers of dreadlocks”; 2) that dreadlocks are “a reasonable and natural method of managing the physiological construct of Black hair”; and 3) that dreadlocks have a “socio-cultural racial significance” for blacks.

The Court’s Ruling

The Court rejected the EEOC’s arguments and dismissed the EEOC’s complaint. First, the Court identified a number of decisions addressing policies that restricted hairstyles and finding that such policies were non-discriminatory. Agreeing with these decisions, the Court held that a “hairstyle, even one more closely associated with a particular ethnic group, is a mutable characteristic.”  The Court also rejected the EEOC’s arguments regarding “socio-cultural racial significance,” noting that culture and race are different concepts and that “Title VII does not protect against discrimination based on traits, even a trait that has socio-cultural racial significance.”

Implications for Employers

This decision further reinforces an employer’s right to establish and enforce grooming policies and describes some parameters on the application of those policies. In addition, when facing EEOC charges which attempt to expand race discrimination under Title VII beyond immutable characteristics, the decision provides support for a defense that mutable characteristics, including traits that have purported “socio-cultural racial significance,” may not be protected as a matter of law.

This blog was previously published by Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

Sanction Award Issued Against EEOC for Spoliation

Posted on by

In a case we previously blogged about, EEOC v. Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP, (E.D.N.C. Mar. 24, 2014), Magistrate Judge L. Patrick Auld held the EEOC liable for spoliation sanctions based on the “negligence, if not gross negligence” exhibited by the charging party it brought suit on behalf of – one Ms. Charlesetta Jennings (Ms. Jennings).  When served with the bill of costs by Womble Carlyle, the EEOC objected to the amount as unreasonable.  In his decision, Judge Auld rejected the EEOC’s argument and ordered the EEOC responsible for $22,900 as the reasonable costs incurred by Womble Carlyle.

Background

The EEOC filed suit on behalf of Ms. Jennings in 2013 alleging that Womble Carlyle failed to accommodate her disability and subsequently terminated her employment because of the disability in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA).  As the EEOC sought back pay on behalf of Ms. Jennings, Womble Carlyle served document demands and interrogatories designed to determine whether she properly mitigated her damages by seeking alternative employment. While being deposed in September 2013, Ms. Jennings testified that she had previously maintained a detailed log chronicling her efforts to obtain alternative employment while she was receiving unemployment insurance benefits; however, once these benefits ended in February 2013, she shredded the log. Further, she testified that she discarded additional material regarding her efforts to obtain employment in June of 2013 – which was after the EEOC had already filed its lawsuit on behalf of Ms. Jennings in January 2013.

Based on Ms. Jennings’ destruction of these documents, Womble Carlyle sought sanctions for spoliation of evidence, which the Court granted and ordered the EEOC to reimburse Womble Carlyle its costs and fees associated with having to bring the spoliation motion.  As a result, Womble Carlyle submitted a Statement of Expenses totaling $29,651.  The EEOC contested the $29,651 amount as unreasonable on several grounds, including its position that Womble Carlyle attorneys “duplicated their efforts” during discovery and that it should not have to pay for the time spent by one attorney reviewing the work of another, where both attorneys are experienced litigators.

The Court’s Decision

As the EEOC objected to the number of hours spent by Womble Carlyle attorneys in relation to the spoliation motion, Judge Auld held it was up to Womble Carlyle to “document the need to have devoted the amount of time for which it seeks compensation” through the submission of “reliable billing records, and…exercise of billing judgment” to deduct time “not properly shown to have been incurred in pursuit of the matter at issue or that is otherwise not reasonable in amount of necessarily incurred.”

Judge Auld rejected the EEOC’s contention that Womble Carlyle attorneys unnecessarily duplicated their efforts in drafting discovery and that it should not be forced to pay for the time spent by one attorney reviewing the work of another attorney “where both attorneys are experienced litigators.”  In doing so, Judge Auld held that after his review, the billing records of Womble Carlyle’s attorneys were reasonable given the nature of the sanction motion and were not duplicative.

Additionally, Judge Auld rejected the EEOC’s request that the Court should reduce by two-thirds the amount of costs since the Court only awarded monetary sanctions and did not grant the other two forms of relief requested by Womble Carlyle: dismissal of the back pay claim, and an adverse inference jury instruction (which the court reserved judgment on until trial).  Judge Auld held that “the fact that the undersigned Magistrate Judge declined to recommend one form of sanction…should not reduce the amount of the recommended sanction of reasonable expenses.”

Judge Auld, however, did reduce Womble Carlyle’s cost application by $6,600 because it failed to demonstrate why it spent 12 more hours on an 11 page reply brief with six exhibits than it spent on an 18-page opening brief with 16 exhibits.  Additionally, Judge Auld reduced the cost award by $151 based on certain block billing entries which were insufficient to meet Womble Carlyle’s burden to support its fee request.  As a result, Judge Auld held the EEOC liable for a total of $22,900 of Womble Carlyle’s costs and fees associated with the spoliation motion.

Implications for Employers

As this case demonstrates, decisions made regarding the preservation of evidence issues at the beginning of, and even leading up to, litigation can have very serious implications, whether in the form of sanctions, an adverse inference at trial or even outright dismissal.  This decision (and Judge Auld’s prior decision) should be added to employers’ defense toolkits, as the preservation of documents and information is a two-way street that employees (and the EEOC) must also follow once litigation is reasonably foreseeable – or proceed at their own peril.

This blog was previously published by Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

Marine Losses Continue Downward Trend

Posted on by

The marine industry continued to see a steady decline in the number of large ships losses globally since 2002, with 94 ships lost in 2013, down 20% from 117 reported in 2012, according to a study by Allianz.

The “Safety and Shipping Review 2014” by Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty found that of ships lost, the largest number, 32, were cargo vessels; 14 were fishing vessels; and 12 were bulk shipments. Only six passenger ships were lost, the survey found. The most common cause of losses in 2013, and over  the last 12 years, was foundering (sinking or submerging). The demise of 69 ships accounted for nearly three-quarters of all losses—with bad weather a significant driver.

Worldwide there were 1,673 losses from Jan. 1, 2002-Dec. 31, 2013, with an average of 139 per year. The top geographic area for losses has been South China, Indo China, Indonesia and Philippines. The area including British Isles, North Sea, English Channel and Bay of Biscay is still ranked fourth, despite improvement. With 45 losses overall, the U.S. eastern seaboard improved in 2013, dropping out of the top 10 regions.

According to the study, January is the worst month for all casualties in the Northern Hemisphere. There were 23% more losses in January compared with the quietest month, June. In the Southern Hemisphere July sees 41% more losses than April.

The majority of losses are caused by machinery damage, the reason for most losses in marine insurance. Statistics from the International Union of Marine Insurance (IUMI) report that 40% of hull claims are machinery damage and account for 20% of costs.

The review found that while piracy is still a threat, it has also subsided. Piracy at sea reached its lowest levels in six years, with 264 attacks recorded worldwide in 2013, a 40% drop since Somali piracy peaked in 2011. Fifteen incidents were reported off Somalia in 2013, including Gulf of Aden and Red Sea incidents, down from 75 in 2012, and 237 in 2011 (including attacks attributed to Somali pirates in Gulf of Aden, Red Sea and Oman).

According to the study: “The very real threat of piracy for ships operating in the Gulf of Aden reached the general public last year as the Hollywood Oscar-nominated blockbuster Captain Phillips was released. Tom Hanks played the lead as the master of the pirated Mærsk Alabama, broadcasting the piracy problem to a much wider audience and raising awareness of its consequences. The steps that the international maritime community has taken to reduce the threat of piracy in the Gulf of Aden have been extremely successful with the number of ships seized and hostages taken in 2013 significantly down on 2012.”

Lower losses overall were attributed to a number of factors including increased regulation, which has helped the maritime industry improve its safety record. Because the quality of operations varies in different regions, however, there is a big need for universal regulations on ship safety to reduce the risk of casualties and loss of life, the survey concluded.