Risk Management

Practice What You Preach

Religious liberty wins at the Supreme Court can have little effect if an organization does not take the essential steps required to claim these protections. The courts—including the court of public opinion—have proven that they are not afraid to analyze whether an organization is “religious enough.” In a culture that has proven its increasing willingness to cancel organizations for their beliefs, organizations that lack an authentic and legally sound religious identity are not just soft targets for cancel culture and accusation, they may inadvertently have waived religious liberty protections to which they are entitled. This Napa Legal webinar discusses the concrete steps an organization can take to secure its religious identity amidst cancel culture.
Religious liberty wins at the Supreme Court can have little effect if an organization does not take the essential steps required to claim these protections. The courts—including the court of public opinion—have proven that they are not afraid to analyze whether an organization is “religious enough.” In a culture that has proven its increasing willingness to cancel organizations for their beliefs, organizations that lack an authentic and legally sound religious identity are not just soft targets for cancel culture and accusation, they may inadvertently have waived religious liberty protections to which they are entitled. This Napa Legal webinar discusses the concrete steps an organization can take to secure its religious identity amidst cancel culture.

Consider Mediation

Employment disputes are common and can quickly result in litigation. Whether tried before a jury, before an arbitrator, or before an administrative agency, employment litigation is expensive, time-consuming, and risky, and can result in unwanted front-page news. Faced with these concerns, many companies have adopted arbitration policies. But this approach has not gone unchallenged. For example, courts in California courts have often found arbitration agreements to be procedurally or substantively “unconscionable,” or both, and hence unenforceable. And last year the California legislature passed a law that would have banned arbitration as a condition for employment. While that legislation has been enjoined (as to arbitration agreements governed by the Federal Arbitration Act), if history is any guide, there will more challenges to come.
Employment disputes are common and can quickly result in litigation. Whether tried before a jury, before an arbitrator, or before an administrative agency, employment litigation is expensive, time-consuming, and risky, and can result in unwanted front-page news. Faced with these concerns, many companies have adopted arbitration policies. But this approach has not gone unchallenged. For example, courts in California courts have often found arbitration agreements to be procedurally or substantively “unconscionable,” or both, and hence unenforceable. And last year the California legislature passed a law that would have banned arbitration as a condition for employment. While that legislation has been enjoined (as to arbitration agreements governed by the Federal Arbitration Act), if history is any guide, there will more challenges to come.