Invalidating decsa college students and dating violence

Posted by / 14-Nov-2019 21:49

Invalidating decsa

Ron: Let's say a player starts a game like "Timber", where the advanced rules are 5-lives only, and has a great game from the start, bordering on a personal best or even world record, with lives remaining. Almost happened to me last evening in practice..assume this was the correct month for "Timber", as I am aware of the 48 hour thing.

If a player hits "F12" for the screen shot after the 5th life loss, and still continues their game for record tracking purposes, would the portion of the game up to the point of the 5th life loss still count for the Advanced DECA, or would the score be invalidated for the DECA yet viable for the Cubeman MAME rankings ?

Without the benefit of legal counsel, and when, as may turn out to be the case with some of the Weinstein allegations, sexual harassment does not rise to the level of criminal sexual assault, workers are right to be uncertain about what NDAs prohibit.

That, along with the accompanying risk of getting fired, can discourage employees from speaking up.

The revelations that led to Weinstein’s downfall—he was fired from his namesake company and has resigned from its board—provoke a key question: Did the law help expose the abuse or push it deeper into the shadows?

There is no question that labor and employment law (not to mention criminal law) forbid sexual harassment and assault at work.

But it’s not as clear whether confidentiality agreements could be enforced when sexual harassment is at issue.

Employers originally used NDAs to secure control over employees’ knowledge of trade secrets.

At the end of the 19th century, courts expanded the scope of what NDAs could cover from only the most highly confidential pieces of information to a “general prohibition on using a wide range of firm-specific information” and to publicly disclosing information about employer misconduct, short of actions that were illegal.

State courts now generally enforce these provisions if they’re deemed “reasonable,” but they be struck down as unenforceable if an employee’s interest outweighs an employer’s or they’re found to go against public policy, such as when they would prevent enforcement of state criminal law.

For a range of reasons—including the dramatic decline in union membership in the private sector—this realm of labor and employment law is generally underenforced, meaning the task of enforcement often de facto falls to companies’ human-resources departments.

But internal compliance structures are notoriously weak: As is alleged to have happened at the Weinstein Company, those who enforce anti-harassment protections can even be complicit with the harassers.

invalidating decsa-67invalidating decsa-29invalidating decsa-5

Because the EEOC acts not only on behalf of private parties but also “to vindicate the public interest” in preventing employment discrimination, such settlement terms would impede the enforcement of Title VII.