FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1503061752> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1503061752 endingPage "107" @default.
• W1503061752 startingPage "94" @default.
• W1503061752 abstract "Introduction Any assessment of the consequences of must include an understanding of the legal context in which it occurs. This article provides a broad overview of that context relative to some key legal considerations in a reduction in force (RIF). In light of these key considerations, I then describe a practical approach to planning a RIF from a lawyer's perspective. Greatly complicating the lawyer's approach to RIF planning is the lottery mentality in contemporary culture, whereby individuals who sue their former employer believe that a certain jackpot awaits them. In addition, many people seem unwilling to accept personal responsibility for their own unsuccessful job performance that leads to job loss. Even for employees who perform their jobs well, too many seem unwilling to accept the notion that in this economic system even good or excellent performers lose their jobs without a law necessarily being violated in the process. The judicial system is not engaged in an academic endeavor to weigh and test theories in order to discover ultimate truths. Lawyers, judges, and juries have very limited time, money, and information to make important judgments that are often based on testimony from individuals with faded memories about past events. A jury must then decide whether it is more probable than not (at least 51 percent certain) that the former employee's termination violated a law. Few life events are more devastating, emotionally and financially, than losing a job. This fact necessarily colors a lawyer's perspective on assessing potential liabilities associated with job loss. If a lawsuit proceeds to trial, jurors may have jobs, may have lost jobs, or may have family and friends who have lost jobs or may lose their jobs. Most people can at least conceive of facing a potential job loss and can imagine themselves in a situation similar to the plaintiff who lost a job. Therefore, an employer forced to defend a claim that a termination decision was unlawful must consider the emotions and perspectives of a potential jury that might judge the claim and award monetary damages if it concludes a law was violated. Some surveys of potential jurors have indicated that an employer forced to defend a discrimination claim is at a disadvantage before ever entering the courtroom. One survey conducted by the Minority Corporate Counsel Association and DecisionQuest (1) revealed that more than 75 percent of white males, who are usually regarded as most supportive of corporations, report distrusting corporations due to events such as the Enron scandal. Further, 85 percent of the survey respondents indicated a belief that large corporations hide information about their products until they are caught by the government or in a lawsuit, and 75 percent of respondents indicated a belief that managers and senior executives are more likely to perjure themselves than lower-level employees. Another DecisionQuest survey in conjunction with the National Law Journal (2) indicated that close to half of the survey respondents disagreed with the statement that most big companies treat all employees fairly and only 29.8 percent of agreed with the statement. Overall, 42.3 percent of respondents agreed that older workers and minorities are the first to lose their jobs in a layoff, although only 18 percent of the white respondents agreed with the statement. More than two-thirds (67.4 percent) of the respondents felt that race discrimination and gender discrimination are still present at many companies. How do employers respond to a system of complex employment laws that are applied in a costly and challenging judicial context? They try to plan in advance so that they have the best possible chance to stay out of court or to win the hearts and minds of a judge and jury if necessary. To understand how this goal can be accomplished, one must first have a fundamental framework of some of the legal claims employers can face, and the following two sections address some key legal issues in that framework. …" @default.
• W1503061752 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1503061752 creator A5063368699 @default.
• W1503061752 date "2005-06-22" @default.
• W1503061752 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W1503061752 title "A Lawyer's Perspective on Planning a Reduction in Force" @default.
• W1503061752 hasPublicationYear "2005" @default.
• W1503061752 type Work @default.
• W1503061752 sameAs 1503061752 @default.
• W1503061752 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1503061752 crossrefType "posted-content" @default.
• W1503061752 hasAuthorship W1503061752A5063368699 @default.
• W1503061752 hasConcept C12713177 @default.
• W1503061752 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W1503061752 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W1503061752 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W1503061752 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W1503061752 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1503061752 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W1503061752 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1503061752 hasConcept C2776119841 @default.
• W1503061752 hasConcept C2779343474 @default.
• W1503061752 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W1503061752 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W1503061752 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W1503061752 hasConceptScore W1503061752C12713177 @default.
• W1503061752 hasConceptScore W1503061752C144024400 @default.
• W1503061752 hasConceptScore W1503061752C144133560 @default.
• W1503061752 hasConceptScore W1503061752C151730666 @default.
• W1503061752 hasConceptScore W1503061752C154945302 @default.
• W1503061752 hasConceptScore W1503061752C17744445 @default.
• W1503061752 hasConceptScore W1503061752C190253527 @default.
• W1503061752 hasConceptScore W1503061752C199539241 @default.
• W1503061752 hasConceptScore W1503061752C2776119841 @default.
• W1503061752 hasConceptScore W1503061752C2779343474 @default.
• W1503061752 hasConceptScore W1503061752C39549134 @default.
• W1503061752 hasConceptScore W1503061752C41008148 @default.
• W1503061752 hasConceptScore W1503061752C86803240 @default.
• W1503061752 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W1503061752 hasLocation W15030617521 @default.
• W1503061752 hasOpenAccess W1503061752 @default.
• W1503061752 hasPrimaryLocation W15030617521 @default.
• W1503061752 hasRelatedWork W108167555 @default.
• W1503061752 hasRelatedWork W1537121211 @default.
• W1503061752 hasRelatedWork W1606912308 @default.
• W1503061752 hasRelatedWork W160998739 @default.
• W1503061752 hasRelatedWork W1964907416 @default.
• W1503061752 hasRelatedWork W1972418228 @default.
• W1503061752 hasRelatedWork W212206112 @default.
• W1503061752 hasRelatedWork W224351947 @default.
• W1503061752 hasRelatedWork W2397473173 @default.
• W1503061752 hasRelatedWork W2462066596 @default.
• W1503061752 hasRelatedWork W2734545976 @default.
• W1503061752 hasRelatedWork W3000888166 @default.
• W1503061752 hasRelatedWork W3121460408 @default.
• W1503061752 hasRelatedWork W3124381436 @default.
• W1503061752 hasRelatedWork W3124793757 @default.
• W1503061752 hasRelatedWork W3125003426 @default.
• W1503061752 hasRelatedWork W6828877 @default.
• W1503061752 hasRelatedWork W830381888 @default.
• W1503061752 hasRelatedWork W839794317 @default.
• W1503061752 hasRelatedWork W2470415211 @default.
• W1503061752 hasVolume "29" @default.
• W1503061752 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1503061752 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1503061752 magId "1503061752" @default.
• W1503061752 workType "article" @default.